PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE

Forces of the Interior (German Treatment)

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will associate itself with the Algiers Committee in agreeing to demand death penalties on all known German officers guilty of shooting, wholesale, men of the Maquis who have fallen, or may fall, into their hands.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government fully share the determination of the French authorities that all practicable steps shall be taken to compel the enemy to accord fair treatment to members of the French Forces of the Interior who fall into his hands. They take a grave view of this matter and are giving it their urgent consideration in consultation with the United States Government and French authorities.

Captain Plugge: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that the men of the Maquis are really not in any way francs tireurs but form part of the regular army defending their country?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer covers my hon. and gallant Friend's question, and I would not like to go further until I have had an opportunity of consulting our Ally.

North Africa (British Representative)

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is the British representative now in North Africa; and whether he acts as liaison officer with the Algiers Committee.

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff

Cooper) was appointed last January as Representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with the French Committee of National Liberation, with the personal rank of Ambassador. He continues to reside at Algiers in that capacity.

Liberated Areas (Administration)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the progress of the negotiations with the Provisional Government of France for the civil administration of liberated French territory.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on our future relationship with General de Gaulle.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement concerning Allied relationship with General de Gaulle and the French Committee of National Liberation.

Mr. Eden: Discussions have been proceeding here between officials of His Majesty's Government and the French Committee of National Liberation on the administration of civil affairs in liberated areas in France, and on currency and other questions. The results of these discussions are being examined by His Majesty's Government and the French Committee and have been communicated to the United States Government and it is hoped that they will be found to form a basis for common agreement.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Is this agreement working well in Cherbourg, because there are disquieting stories, particularly in regard to the taking over of effective control at Cherbourg? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance on that?

Mr. Eden: That is a different question. On the question of the actual working arrangements in France, all the reports I have are that they are very good and that the collaboration we have had from the local French people is excellent.

Mr. Boothby: I understand that these negotiations have taken place between ourselves and the French without the Americans. Is it necessary for America to be a party to any agreement we come to, or can we come to an agreement ourselves?

Mr. Eden: As I have said, we have communicated the results of our work to the United States Government, but I should not like to put it in the way my hon. Friend has done. Our object is to secure agreement between the three Governments in this matter. I very much hope that the hard work which has been put in here will very much facilitate that.

Miss Ward: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a further statement on the subject?

Mr. Eden: I cannot say for certain, but I should hope shortly.

Mr. Hynd: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that agreement has been reached between the French Committee and ourselves?

Mr. Eden: No, what has been done is, that the experts, the officials here, have drawn up these documents. These have been submitted to the French Committee and His Majesty's Government. We are respectively studying them. We have also communicated them to the United States Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the historian charged with the editing of the Foreign Office documents relating to the period 1919–1931, will be given complete discretion as to the publication or non-publication of particular documents, or whether certain documents may be withheld from publication.

Mr. Eden: Professor Woodward will have discretion to include in his selection of documents all those documents in the Foreign Office which he considers necessary for the presentation of a full and objective historical record.

Miss Ward: Is this gentleman to have access to Air Ministry and War Office documents as well, in order to complete the whole thing?

Mr. Eden: That is hardly a matter on which I can answer.

Miss Ward: Will, my right hon. Friend make inquiries and see whether that extension can be granted?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED COUNTRIES (EMERGENCY HOUSES)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he has made in the examination of the possibility of providing emergency houses for the French and other Allied peoples whose houses will have been destroyed by Allied air and military operations.

Mr. Eden: Both the stocks and the production of building and repair materials in this country are being kept under review by the appropriate Departments, and demands upon them for relief purposes will be met as far as possible when presented by the national and international agencies concerned. We are very conscious of the heavy sacrifices the peoples of the liberated countries have been called upon to make and I would assure my hon. Friend that the serious problem of rehousing in these countries is one which must certainly command the sympathy of all of us, and is among the subjects which are to be considered by the Inter-Allied Committee for Physical Planning and Reconstruction, established under the auspices of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.

Mr. Astor: Is there any reasonable hope that some form even of temporary housing may be produced this coming winter, if the military situation justifies it?

Mr. Eden: Allied effort will do its best, but my hon. Friend knows how heavy and numerous are the calls.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

German War Production (Reports)

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the continued assistance given by the Franco Government to Germany at Pamplona, in testing explosives and pilotless planes, in the use of Spanish shipyards for war production, in the organisation of nitrogen factories by German engineers, the training in Spain of Luftwaffe personnel and the continued export to Germany of iron ore, tin and zinc; and can he make a statement on these matters.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware


that Spanish territory under the control of General Franco has been used for the testing of flying bombs by German research scientists; what representations have been made to General Franco on this matter; and wile further action is to be taken.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the broadcasts by the Moscow radio on 24th June stated that the testing of the flying bombs was carried out at Pamplona with the aid of the Spanish Government; if he has received any official communication from the Soviet Government to this effect; and whether any protest has been made to that Government.

Mr. Eden: I had already inquired into recent Press and radio reports regarding alleged assistance to enemy scientific research at Pamplona and I am satisfied that these reports are without foundation. The Spanish Ambassador has just informed me, on the instructions of his Government, that they are absolutely untrue. I have received no official communication from the Soviet Government on this matter. There is no information available to His Majesty's Government suggesting that Spanish shipyards have been working for German war production. I understand that two nitrate factories are being constructed in Spain for which machinery is to be delivered from Germany. German engineers are reported to be engaged in installation work at one of these factories, neither of which have yet been completed and the production of which will be to meet Spanish requirements. I am satisfied that no training of Luftwaffe personnel is taking place in Spain. Iron ore and some zinc has been exported to Germany from Spain but I have no information of any exports of tin. Exports of zinc this year show a very marked decrease on the 1943 figure. It is, of course, the constant policy of His Majesty's Government to ensure that exports of essential raw materials from neutral countries to Germany should be reduced as far as possible.

Mr. Leach: While thanking the right hon. gentleman for his very excellent reply, which was reassuring, may I ask whether he will be so good as to look a

little further into the details of this information, as it comes from Russian sources, which are usually quite reliable?

Mr. Eden: I did go to some pains to look into this matter. I telegraphed to Madrid myself, and I am absolutely satisfied that our sources of information are absolutely reliable on this Pamplona story.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In view of the delicacy of the present international situation, will my right hon. Friend take such steps as lie in his power to prevent these stupid and mischievous attempts to sow dissension between ourselves and Spain?

Mr. Eden: I certainly think it is desirable that all of us should be careful in what we say, and that we should not make statements that we cannot substantiate.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Germans are developing a nitrate factory in Spain for purely benevolent purposes?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. I did not say that the Germans were developing a nitrate factory. I said that they were delivering the machinery for it. Of course, there is trade between Germany and Spain. Germany and Spain, no doubt, have a trade arrangement, as we and Spain have a trade arrangement. We try to cut down their trade as far as possible. I think it is very likely that the development of these nitrate factories is due to the fact that it is very difficult for Spain to get nitrates from abroad.

Mr. Shinwell: As this story apparently originated in Moscow, and was recorded on the Moscow radio, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has considered approaching the Soviet Government to ask whether they have any evidence in support of this allegation? Has he considered doing that, if he has not already done so?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I have not done that. I have not approached the Soviet Government. I am absolutely convinced that we know more about this matter than do the Soviet Government.

Mr. Shinwell: If in fact, as appears to be the case, the story did originate in Moscow, would it not be desirable to


ascertain from authoritative sources there, whether there is any evidence in support of the allegation? Would not that be desirable?

Mr. Eden: The Soviet Government have made no comments to us on the matter. I have made my statement. Of course, I shall be quite ready to consider any observations they have to make.

Mr. G. Strauss: Not only from the point of view of information but on a point of courtesy, would it not be desirable, since this declaration came from Moscow, to ask the Russian Government where they got the information?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that any point of courtesy arises. This statement was put out from the Moscow radio. I have been asked by the House, as the House is entitled to ask, what our information is, and I have given our information.

Mr. Driberg: While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will gladly consider any representations that the Soviet authorities may make, may I ask whether he will not take the initiative in asking the Soviet authorities if they can find any evidence that would justify the story?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I do not really see that this arises. The House of Commons, as it is entitled to do, often asks Ministers for information about statements made abroad. Ministers give that information. I have done it. If anybody has anything else to say, or any other evidence, I shall be very glad to see it.

Mr. Pritt: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider this suggestion? He was asked to get information about a story which comes from an Ally of some importance, and the only person he does not ask is that Ally, who may know something about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember, since he is very firm about his knowledge of Spain, that he once told us that there were no Italian troops in Spain——

Mr. Eden: I am perfectly ready to put my record on the Spanish question side by side with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, at any time and in any place. I am equally ready to put my 1940 record side by side with his. As regards the statement I have made, I have not the

least doubt, in view of the very friendly relations which exist between the Soviet Government and ourselves, that if that Government attached any importance to the statement from their radio, they would gladly have told us.

Tangier (German Agents)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now satisfied with regard to German agents in Tangier.

Mr. Eden: Since the reply which I gave on 7th June to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), certain further German agents have been removed from Tangier and Spanish Morocco. The cases of other agents are still under discussion with the Spanish Government. His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid, who has recently renewed his representations on this subject, has been instructed to make it clear to the Spanish Government that His Majesty's Government expect this question to be finally disposed of without further delay in accordance with the agreement of 1st May.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (CENSORSHIP)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken in reply to the collective protest of 2nd May, 1944, by newspaper correspondents in the Middle East against the censorship of Greek news in general.

Mr. Eden: Lord Moyne, the Minister Resident in the Middle East, saw the correspondents concerned and explained to them the military and political considerations which made it necessary to maintain censorship on outgoing messages. It will be remembered that at that date mutinies had just taken place in the Greek armed forces and the Conference of Greek Delegates was about to start in the Lebanon, so that there was need for exercising particular discretion. Since then the censorship regulations have been considerably relaxed.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (SITUATION)

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the recent meeting between members of the Royal Govern-


ment of Yugoslavia and members of the Government of Marshal Tito, both as regards the future conduct of the war and as regards internal Balkan questions.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information as to the settlement reached between Marshal Tito and King Peter's representatives.

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friends will no doubt have seen the joint communiqué issued by the Yugoslav Prime Minister and Marshal Tito on 18th June mentioning that agreement and mutual accord was reached regarding many questions. There is at present nothing for me to add to the terms of that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (BRITISH RELATIONS)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on relations with Argentina.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Ambassador in Argentina is returning to this country immediately for consultation. Before he goes back to his post I shall take the opportunity to review with him all aspects of our relations with Argentina with particular reference to their bearing on the war. Until I have completed this review I should prefer to make no further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WEST INDIES AIRWAYS

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken by his Department to provide aircraft for British West Indies Airways.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): With the approval of the Combined Munitions Assignment Board in Washington, three Hudson aircraft have been made available for sale to this company.

Captain Macdonald: When will these aircraft be delivered? There is great delay in delivering aircraft to this company, which is almost out of action as a result of the delays in my right hon. Friend's Department, and this Munitions Assignment Board, whatever it is, has not been functioning, so far as this company is concerned.

Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in supposing that the delays have occurred in my Department. Some time ago we offered another type of aircraft, which in fact the company had originally asked us for, but, no doubt for perfectly good reasons, they changed their mind. The first aircraft will, I think, be ready in a few days, and the others in a very few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Aircraftman, Cairo (Home Posting)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Air why Aircraftman Leo Abse was posted to this country immediately after he had taken office in the Forces Parliament at Cairo at a time when he still had 18 months unexpired of the normal period of service in the Middle East; why he was kept under open arrest for 14 days awaiting his departure from Egypt, without any charge, pretext or explanation; and why the protest of the educational officer of his unit that his posting was detrimental to the educational work of his unit, which Abse was assisting, was ignored.

Sir A. Sinclair: An Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full discretion to post an airman at any time if he considers such a posting to be in the interests of the Service, and Aircraftman Abse was posted by the A.O.C.-in-C., Middle East, in the exercise of this discretion. I am informed that he was not at any time placed under open arrest. It is understood that this airman had for three weeks prior to his posting been taking an educational class at his Unit, and his posting was no doubt a matter of regret to the Education Officer whom he was assisting. It was not, however, considered that this provided a good reason for varying the decision.

Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. Gentleman, firstly, say why the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief exercised this discretion? No doubt he had the power but I asked why he exercised it. Would he also explain, if this aircraftman was not kept under open arrest, why he was expressly informed by the officer in charge of the camp where he was kept waiting, that he was not to leave the camp because he was under open arrest?

Sir A. Sinclair: When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament—of which the House has been informed at Question Time—a public protest was organised against the decision, in which this airman figured prominently. The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered whether disciplinary action was called for. He decided, rightly, in my opinion, to take the view that this was really a case of misplaced zeal and not to take disciplinary action. He did however think it was in the interests of the Service that this man should be posted away from the Command.

Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does his original answer mean, in regard to the powers vested in the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, that if an airman desires to be posted back to this country, all he has to do is to join the Forces Parliament in Cairo?

Sir A. Sinclair: An airman who tried to take advantage of the very experienced Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East in that way, would find he had made a big mistake.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is this not a unique case of a man serving in the Middle East, complaining that he has been sent back to this country?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is, in my experience.

Mr. Pritt: Was it not the case that the only protest organised by anybody was when an officer came round without notice and closed the Forces Parliament and the persons there voted, then and there, against such a decision by 600 to 1? If that is enough to post a good aircraftman back to England why is there anyone left in the Middle East?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the Air Officer Commanding weighed all these considerations before he decided on the action he took. I forgot to reply to a further question which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the question of arrest. I did make particular inquiries into this question of arrest, and the Group Commander, the Station Commander, the Port and Transport Camp Commander and the Provost Marshal, all deny that Aircraftman Abse was ever under arrest, and no instructions were issued for his arrest.

Mr. Pritt: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and the very grave issue involved, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Civilian Clothing (Coupons)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air if the concession of 21 clothing coupons per year made to officers for the purchase of civilian clothing will be made available to other ranks.

Sir A. Sinclair: It is misleading to compare the position of officers and other ranks with regard to the issue of clothing coupons. Officers have to buy their own uniforms, underclothes and clothing 'or sport and recreation. For this they are allowed 88 coupons a year, 21 of which can be spent on clothes for sport and recreation. Other ranks have a free issue of uniform and underwear and in general get clothes for sport or recreation either as an issue or through Service institutes. I regret that the stocks of material available make it impossible to alter this arrangement which is the same in the Navy and Army.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that the phrase I have used about the 21 coupons for civilian clothing is the phrase he used in reply to me last week? Is it not a fact that sports clothing consists of a jacket and trousers, which can be worn outside? Does he realise that many men of other ranks who joined in 1939, have discovered when they get leave that, because of their training their own clothes cannot——

Mr. Speaker: Really, I once said I was in favour of short questions.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter? If the concession can be given to officers, why cannot the men have it?

Sir A. Sinclair: If the hon. Member will look at the answer I have given, he will see that the circumstances are different.

Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these 21 coupons for officers are used for no other purpose than that for which they are issued?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have not looked into that point, because I have not been asked that question before.

Funeral Expenses (Grant)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Air why his Ministry allow only £5 towards the cost of a deceased airman's funeral when he is buried by his relatives, whereas the Army and the Ministry of Pensions allow £7 10s.; and will he rectify this anomaly.

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, there is no such anomaly. The practice of the Army and the Royal Air Force in this matter is the same. The maximum grant payable by the Ministry of Pensions, where an ex-member of the Forces dies of an injury or disease which is attributable to war service, is £10. This sum is not comparable with the £5 referred to by the hon. Member, which is a fixed grant additional to the provision of a coffin and free conveyance of the body to the home address.

Mr. Edwards: If I can prove to my right hon. Friend that the rates are not the same for the Army and for the Air Force, will he rectify the anomaly?

Sir A. Sinclair: I shall be very glad to see my hon. and gallant Friend's information.

Oral Answers to Questions — KUMASI TOWN COUNCIL (ELECTION)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people were eligible to vote at the first election to the Kumasi Town Council, that was held on 21st September, 1943; and how many actually voted.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The approximate number of persons eligible for registration as voters in Kumasi is 14,600. The number of voters registered is 3,805, of whom 828 voted at the September election.

Mr. Turton: In view of these remarkable figures, what steps have been taken to bring the attention of the people of Kumasi to their voting responsibilities?

Colonel Stanley: The local Press paid a great deal of attention to this extraordinarily small poll, and urged that it did not show a very great regard for the responsibilities of citizenship.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the percentage of voters is approximately the same as that for the last council elections in this country?

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Commissioner for Ashanti is very satisfied with this new experiment and with the remarkable progress which has been made in Kumasi in regard to social responsibility?

Colonel Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not encourage the idea that this is really satisfactory. It is only a start.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (COURT-MARTIAL, ALEXANDRIA)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons why an able seaman, whose name and number have been communicated to him, was sentenced to two years' hard labour at Alexandria in March last; the present whereabouts of this man; and whether he himself has considered this case.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): This rating was tried by court-martial at Alexandria in March last, and was found guilty of assault with intent to rob. When the minutes of the proceedings reached this country, the Admiralty formed the opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to support the finding of the court, and the sentence was annulled. The rating was released from prison on 8th June, and directed to report to his depot.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATHURST AND FREETOWN (TOWN PLANNING)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any plans for improving the lay-out of Bathurst and Freetown.

Colonel Stanley: A scheme has been made, under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, to provide expert staff to prepare plans and estimates for the improvement of living conditions in Bathurst, and the consequential development of the Province of Kombo St. Mary. The Gambia Government will have the advice of Major Maxwell Fry, Town


Planning Adviser for West Africa, who has already visited the Gambia to discuss this scheme. As regards Freetown, steps were taken in 1941 to acquire lands required for the creation of town planning areas, but detailed planning of the slum clearance and rehousing scheme contemplated has to be reconciled with the postwar requirements of the Service authorities, with whom local consultations are taking place. A member of the town planning adviser's staff has recently been collecting data in Freetown, with a view to the preparation of a plan for the whole area affected.

Miss Ward: Is it possible for my right hon. and gallant Friend to give the date when all these improvements will be carried out?

Colonel Stanley: One of the necessary preliminaries to that would be to fix a date when the war will end.

Mr. Petheriek: In view of the very bad lay-out and construction of Bathurst, will the requisite funds be available in due course for the entire rebuilding of the place?

Colonel Stanley: There are very elaborate plans, which entail moving a very large part of Bathurst. I have given this grant for the preliminary investigations, and certainly a final grant will be very favourably considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE (ADULT SUFFRAGE)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which Colonies there is adult suffrage and in which merely limited male suffrage.

Colonel Stanley: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the return, presented to this House on 2nd November, 1938 (House of Commons Paper No. 169), together with a note of the changes which have been made since that date or are contemplated in the near future.

Miss Ward: Can a note of the changes be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that we may have an up-to-date record?

Colonel Stanley: I will certainly arrange that.

Following is the note:

In 1939 a new Constitution was introduced in Malta, which provided for a Legislature of which a proportion of the members are elected on the basis of male franchise. Beyond this there has been no change. It has been decided to introduce universal suffrage in Jamaica, an alteration which will not be brought into operation before the end of this year. In addition, women have recently been given the vote in Bermuda, on the same qualifications as men, while the franchise qualifications in Barbados were reduced in 1943. The changes were rather detailed, but the general result was to halve the property qualifications, while the income qualification was reduced from £50 a year to £20 a year. The question of the franchise is also under consideration in British Guiana and Trinidad, but I am not yet in a position to say what changes may be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON, CONSTITUTION (AP- POINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS)

Captain Cobb: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ministers in Ceylon have yet formulated draft proposals for constitutional reform; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government propose to take.

32. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make, or will give particulars respecting the future Constitution of Ceylon.

Colonel Stanley: A draft scheme has been submitted by the Board of Ministers in Ceylon and His Majesty's Government have decided to appoint a Commission which will, it is hoped, visit Ceylon at the end of the year to examine their scheme. His Majesty's Government have accordingly authorised the Governor of Ceylon to communicate to Ministers a further statement by His Majesty's Government the text of which I will with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Has there been any preliminary discussion with representative Ceylonese on this matter?

Hon. Members: Sinhalese.

Colonel Stanley: Not on this matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right description of the inhabitants of Ceylon Sinhalese or Ceylonese?

Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the commissioners consist of Members of both Houses or of officials?

Following is the statement:

In their Declaration of 1943, on the subject of the reform of the Ceylon Constitution, His Majesty's Government invited the Ceylon Ministers to submit proposals for a new Constitution, and promised that once victory was achieved such detailed proposals as the Ministers might in the meantime have been able to formulate in the way of a complete constitutional scheme would be examined by a Commission or Conference. Ministers have now submitted their draft scheme, with an urgent request that arrangements may be made for its examination at an earlier date than that contemplated in the Declaration.

His Majesty's Government have accordingly decided to appoint a Commission to examine the Ministers' proposals, which would visit Ceylon for this purpose towards the end of the present year. The adoption of this course does not entail in other respects any modification of the Declaration by His Majesty's Government in regard to the eventual approval by His Majesty's Government of any new Constitution. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the appointment of the Commission should provide full opportunity for consultation to take place with the various interests, including the minority communities, concerned with the subject of constitutional reform in Ceylon and with the proposals which Ministers have formulated.

Further, in accordance with the object, already declared, of avoiding a General Election in Ceylon during the war, with consequent dislocation of Ceylon's war effort, the Ceylon (State Council) Order in Council, 1931, will be amended so as to prolong the life of the existing State Council for a further period of two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Labour Camps

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what

extent the Government of Kenya are conscripting Africans in the towns and reserves and sending them to conscript labour camps on 12 months' tickets; whether, in regard to their employment, penal sanctions operate; to what extent they are hired-out at 1s. a day; and whether such men are sent to work on all kinds of production at all stages.

Colonel Stanley: The camps are intended as reception depots, and Africans conscripted under the regulations would not perform their period of service at the camp. They would normally be there for a fortnight. There is provision for the men to be employed during their stay on essential work in the vicinity of the camp, and I am asking the Acting-Governor for a report on the extent to which this arrangement is in force, and the conditions attached to such employment.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that definite limitations are put on the type of work for which these conscripts can be employed?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, they can be employed only on essential work, for which I have given permission.

Indians (Court-martial Sentences)

Mr. Emmott: asked the Secretary of State far War whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case in Kenya in which 52 Indians of the artisan class, serving with the local military authorities, are reported to have been sentenced to five years' penal servitude for mutiny by a public court-martial; and whether he is in a position to say what were the circumstances that resulted in the imposition of a sentence of this severity.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am making inquiries into this case.

Defence Regulations (Labour)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the period of operation of the powers taken in February under the Defence (Limitation of Labour) Regulations of the war-time Emergency Acts, and concerned with the reorganisation and distribution of labour supply in Kenya; what provision is made for appeals of Africans against decisions of the director of man-power or his subordinates, or what check exists on the use


of these powers; what provision is made for compensation to Africans for termination of any contract between employer and employee as a result of an order; and whether an African may now only leave his reserve with the permission of the district officer.

Colonel Stanley: These Defence Regulations will remain in operation as long as the man-power situation requires. The Director of Man-power, whose decision is final, can order an African to leave his employment and report to a specified authority, where he would be given the option of entering approved employment or returning to his reserve. In these circumstances, no question of compensation arises. These regulations introduce no new restriction in regard to an African leaving his reserve, but the effect of the regulations is that, if he does so, he must enter approved employment.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are these regulations intended only for the war period? Is there any condition that they must terminate at the end of the war, or when it is judged that the war has come to an end? In regard to the work that these men are asked to do, do penal sanctions operate for misbehaviour?

Colonel Stanley: In reply to the first part of the question, the regulations are certainly intended to last only for the duration of the war. In reply to the second part, my impression is that this labour is different from the ordinary conscripted labour. The penalty is to be sent back to the reserves.

Dr. Morgan: Are there any safeguards regarding workmen's compensation for individuals conscripted under these laws, if they receive injuries arising out of the work that they are doing under these regulations?

Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question down. When I was in Kenya I had discussions with officials about it. At that time, it was done under a voluntary pool.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (DEVELOPMENT POLICY)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what active policy is being pursued in Nyasaland to discourage the continued drainage of men

from the Protectorate; and what programme in regard to agricultural development, low wages and poor standards of living is being prepared.

Colonel Stanley: The Nyasaland Post-War Development Committee is preparing a comprehensive post-war programme, covering agricultural and other forms of development, designed to raise the standard of living of the population in both the economic and the social sphere. It is the intention of the Nyasaland Government actively to pursue a planned policy of development, the implementing of which will discourage excessive emigration from the Protectorate.

Mr. Riley: Will these plans be eligible for grant from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund?

Colonel Stanley: Most certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE SCHEMES)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Mauritius has submitted to him any schemes for development under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940; if so, what are the kind of schemes; whether they have been approved and the finance involved.

Colonel Stanley: Four schemes have been approved for Mauritius covering antimalarial measures, a census, the erection of a factory for the production of food yeast and fisheries research involving a total estimated expenditure of £23,650. Other proposals covering agricultural, educational and medical services are now under consideration.

Mr. Riley: Can the Minister say whether these schemes have been approved by him?

Colonel Stanley: My answer states that the schemes have been approved.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister think that the contemplated development in Mauritius, costing £23,000, and developments in Nyasaland, can all be met out of the meagre sums at his disposal?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, I have several times stated in this House that I do not regard this as sufficient, and I hope hon. Members, including my hon. Friend opposite, will take the same view.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but if that is my right hon. Friend's view, why does he not make representations to the Chancellor to get more money for these very necessary developments?

Colonel Stanley: Because, at the moment, my difficulty is, with the shortage of labour and materials, to spend even the money I have got.

Mr. Shinwell: Why not for the future?

Colonel Stanley: I am looking after that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (PUBLIC EDUCATION)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the approximate amount spent per annum by the Governments of Kenya, Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia, respectively, on public education, giving in each Colony the amount spent per head on white settlers' children and African children, respectively.

Colonel Stanley: Provision has been made, in the 1944 Estimates, for expenditure of £300,000, £181,000, and £200,000 by the respective Governments. In addition, the native administrations make contributions towards African education. I regret that the information immediately available is not sufficient to enable me to give a complete answer to the second part of the Question, but I will obtain details and communicate them to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (CARIBBEAN CONFERENCE)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the date and place for the next West Indian Conference under the auspices of the Caribbean Commission has yet been fixed; and whether he will ensure that at least one representative from each British Colony represented at the conference shall be an elected member of the national legislature of the Colony he represents.

Colonel Stanley: The recommendation of the Conference Report that the next meeting of the Conference should be held within the next twelve months is now being considered by the Caribbean Governments concerned, and though I

hope that it will be possible to arrange a meeting within this time, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement. The suggestion in the second part of the Question will be considered when the time comes to make arrangements for the next Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Seating Accommodation

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware that the corridors in long-distance travelling trains have passengers who are unable to get seats yet first-class compartments are seating three only on each side; and will he take steps to make it known that under such circumstances they should seat four passengers on each side.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): About twelve months ago the railway staff were told that, where the construction of first-class compartments allow it to be done, arm rests must be raised, if extra seats are required. In all such compartments notices have been put up informing passengers that there are four seats a side. I hope that my hon. Friend's Question and my reply will help to make this more widely known.

Mr. Tinker: Is the Minister aware that I have not seen any of the notices yet, and that I had the experience two weeks ago of being the fourth in a first-class compartment, and that this was not very well received? And does he not think it would be better if he told passengers in first-class compartments to realise that they have a duty?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will look into the question raised by my hon. Friend. I have very often seen the notices.

Mr. Mack: Does the Minister realise that in view of the fact that first-class passengers very frequently overflow into third-class compartments and that third-class passengers overflow into first-class, it would be better to abolish first-class compartments altogether and not take money from people without giving a guarantee of a seat?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have very often answered Questions of that kind in this House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: May I ask the Minister why German prisoners of war are given the luxurious travelling conditions described in the Question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not know that first class compartments are reserved for German prisoners of war. Of course, compartments are reserved for prisoners of war.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that compartments are still being reserved for important people on trains going North, and is he also aware that I waited an hour for the 5.30 train last week and could then only get standing room, not in a compartment, but in the corridor?

Mr. Shinwell: When the Minister said that German prisoners of war have seats reserved for them, do they ever have to stand in corridors?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It has always been the practice to reserve compartments for prisoners of war, who must be kept apart.

Mr. Turton: Could the Minister not take up the matter of abolishing the buttress in first-class compartments, which sticks in the middle of one's back, and so make room for four or five seats?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It would mean the reconstruction of first-class compartments, and there is not the labour to do that.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware that the seats reserved on trains for persons travelling on urgent national business are inadequate; and will he make further provision on more evening trains forthwith.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Seats are reserved on some trains on certain routes for persons travelling on urgent national business. So far, the demand for these seats has been well below the number provided. If my hon. Friend desires that the arrangements should be extended to any other train, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have particulars. He will recognise, however, that the arrangements can only be applied to a relatively small number of trains.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is no train leaving

London after 1.35 p.m. on which seats can be reserved; and would he further look into the position of the 6.10 to Birmingham from Paddington?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As regards the 6.10 to Birmingham, I will look into that.

Holiday Traffic (Advance Bookings)

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware of the confusion caused in Macclesfield through the railway companies encouraging and accepting advance bookings for the workers' holidays far in excess of the accommodation that was subsequently provided; and, in view of the approach of the Lancashire holidays, will he make the position as to workers travelling perfectly clear.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The public are well aware that many passenger trains have been withdrawn, and they have repeatedly been warned that more would be withdrawn, without notice, during the summer months. My hon. Friend will readily understand that additional trains cannot be provided for holiday travel while the present pressure of war traffic continues, and I am sire he will appreciate the reasons which have made it undesirable to announce the details of changes in advance. I hope this answer will make it clear to all intending passengers that booking in advance implies no guarantee that accommodation will be available on the trains.

Mr. Burke: How comes it, then, that the railway companies may accept the luggage of passengers and send it away, and, having sold them a ticket, do not provide them with a seat; and, in view of the short distance to the Lancashire coast, can the Minister not put extra coaches on the trains for war workers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the trains are running with the maximum number of coaches. Actually, in the case of Macclesfield, we regret the inconvenience caused, but I believe it is true that only 50 passengers failed to reach their destination.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR-CARS (BUMPERS)

Mr. Bartle Bull: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will consider introducing a regulation that bumpers on motor-cars should always be at the same height.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is not obligatory to fit bumpers on motor-cars, and I am not satisfied that it is necessary to impose a regulation governing their height from the ground. I will, however, bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of motor manufacturers.

Mr. Bull: Arising out of that reply, does the Minister think that it is a good thing to have these bumpers at different heights, because it only causes more muddle, and would be consider, if I ask him now, as I have asked him twice before, reaching a decision on the question of right-hand drive?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Information if he is aware that out of 35 B.B.C. flashes on road accidents, in which the principal blame is placed on children, not one sought to impress on drivers the dangers of high-speed; and will he correct this.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): The purpose of these flashes is not to assess blame. They are designed, in conjunction with the Ministry of War Transport, to remind the public, and particularly those in charge of children, of the rules of road safety.

Mr. Leach: Will the Minister be good enough to inform the people with this upper middle-class sentiment, who govern the B.B.C. on motor-car lines, that a large number of hon. Members of this House deeply resent the charges made against small children of being culpable in the matter of road accidents?

Mr. Bracken: I think the B.B.C. will also resent the description of being run by the upper middle class, but I will certainly bring that point to the attention of the Governors.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Information whether he will cause to be made, or assist the Royal Society for the Prevention of Acidents to make, a 35 millimetre film designed to promote safety on the roads.

Mr. Bracken: A 35 mm. road safety film is available for showing by mobile units. Several trailers have been shown at various times in cinemas throughout the country and others are under consideration.

Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in view of the fact that the Minister of War Transport said recently that casualties on the roads exceeded war casualties by 200,000, he can say whether there is any effective cooperation between Government Departments to deal with this terrible war on the roads?

Mr. Bracken: As far as publicity is concerned, there is admirable co-ordination, but publicity cannot cure this grievous situation.

Mr. Thomas: Is there any reason why this film should not be shown throughout the cinemas in the country, which, I understand, was the suggestion?

Mr. Bracken: I cannot impose on cinemas in this country the obligation of showing Ministry films. I can ask for their co-operation, and I have got it in a very large number of matters. I can only call the attention of the people in control to the film.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister get the B.B.C. to make a statement that these accidents to children will continue until the Government take over the land?

Mr. Bracken: If I were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, I would really have to ask the Government to take over the B.B.C. and then I would be free from many woes.

Mr. John Dugdale: Would it not be correct to say that the question might more properly be addressed to Mr. Rank, who has control of all these cinemas?

Mr. Bracken: That is altogether incorrect. Mr. Rank controls a proportion of the cinemas and the hon. Gentleman ought to make sure of his facts before he makes these assertions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MAIL SERVICE, SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will, for the convenience of the public, arrange to establish as soon as possible an air-mail service from this country to South Africa and Rhodesia as a counterpart to the air-mail service already in existence from South Africa and Rhodesia to this country.

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): The aircraft capacity available for the conveyance of mails outwards on the Empire air routes is at present fully taken up by air letter mails for the Forces and airgraphs for Forces and civilians. I am fully aware of the desirability of improving the air-mail service to the Union of South Africa and to Northern and Southern Rhodesia and to Empire countries generally on the Empire air routes, and I shall lose no opportunity to do so as and when sufficient aircraft capacity for mails becomes available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COPPER (BULK PURCHASE)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Production if he will publish the calculations as a result of which he has estimated that the bulk purchase of copper imports has resulted in a saving of £40,000,000 during the whole course of the war.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): It would not be in the public interest to give details of our copper purchases during the war. It is estimated, however, that the difference in the average price paid during the war to producers in the U.S.A. and South America for refined copper f.o.b. refinery and that paid for refined copper f.o.b. under the long term contracts entered into by His Majesty's Government early in the war amounts in the aggregate, in respect of our purchases during the five years of war, to approximately £35,000,000. This sum by no means covers all the savings which have been made by bulk purchase of copper.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures include amounts paid to the British Metals Corporation for managing the affair?

Mr. A. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the statement he has just made strengthens the case for private enterprise or otherwise?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Meat and Dairy Produce (New Zealand)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Food if he will inform the House of the terms of the proposed contract with the Government of New Zealand for meat and dairy produce.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I am not yet in a position to give any particulars.

Sir A. Southby: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say how long it will be before he can answer a question on that subject?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot give any date.

Mr. Shinwell: While such an announcement will be welcomed by Members in all quarters of the House, can the Minister say whether it is to be on a reciprocal basis or whether an arrangement has been made with these Dominion Governments to take goods from us?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, it will be an arrangement by which we shall get certain supplies of meat and dairy products at a certain price.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister read carefully the speech made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) yesterday and consider whether a contract cannot be made with Scotland for dairy produce?

Sugar (Jam Making)

Mr. Eccles: asked the Minister of Food whether he will release the extra sugar for jam-making at once in view of the necessity to take advantage of as much of the soft fruit as possible in a scarce year.

Colonel Llewellin: The issue will be made during the four weeks commencing 23rd July. This is the earliest date at which supplies can be made available in retail shops.

Bombed-out Persons (Rations)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider adding to the temporary ration cards issued to bombed-out persons some personal points coupons to facilitate the purchase of sweets, etc.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. I have arranged for personal points coupons lost or destroyed through enemy action to be replaced from the beginning of the week in which the loss is reported to the Food Office.

Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many bombed-out


children will be grateful for the rapid action he has taken upon the representation that has been made?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (STEEL PRODUCTION)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consult with the appropriate Government Departments to ascertain the quality and quantity of light steel sheeting required by the light engineering firms that have been established in Scotland during the war; and investigate the possibility of having that market supplied from Scottish production.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): We are in close consultation, where necessary, with other Government Departments concerned, and all practicable steps are being taken to relate the production of steel sheets geographically to consumption in order to save transport and labour.

Mr. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these new firms which were established in Scotland during the war have applied without success to Scottish firms for the supply of steel sheets and they are still getting them from English firms?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. I do know that there are certain qualities of steel sheets which are not made in Scotland and which are required by producers in Scotland, and I believe that they are being sent.

Mr. Fraser: Is there any reason why they should not be made in Scotland?

Sir A. Duncan: There is no plant in Scotland with which to make them.

Mr. Gallacher: Why is not there a plant in Scotland in order to make them?

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the total or partial closure of steel making plants has lessened the production of steel in Scotland during the past six months.

Sir A. Duncan: It would not be in the public interest to publish particulars of steel output, but I can say that production in Scotland has followed the same trend as in Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, why the steel sheeting to be used in the construction of prefabricated houses in Scotland is not to be rolled in Scottish mills.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): No decision has been reached on the question where the steel sheeting required for the emergency factory-made house will be rolled. It will be a question of finding the mills where the necessary capacity can be made available without affecting other vital demands. All sources will be fully considered.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible that there might be an objection on the part of Scottish people to live in prefabricated houses that have been made in England?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Prefabricated Houses, Metropolitan Area

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works how many prefabricated houses are to be erected for inspection in the Metropolitan police area; whether one will be erected in the outer North-Eastern area to enable those in Leyton, Walthamstow, Wanstead, Chingford and Ilford to inspect it; and what would be the extra cost of installing an internal basement to be used for air-raid protection and other purposes.

Mr. Hicks: I regret that it would not be possible to make prototype houses available for inspection in the various parts of London. The provision of a basement is not considered either desirable or practicable.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman does not anticipate war within 15 or 20 years, when these houses will be obsolete?

Mr. Hicks: It is not intended to go into production until after the war is over, and I understand that we and our Russian friends are living on very good terms.

Sites Clearance (By-laws)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is no clause in his Ministry's model by-laws which requires the effectual removal of


growing vegetable matter from a site before the erection of a building is commenced; and if he will remedy this before post-war building is commenced.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Yes, Sir. There has been no general demand by local authorities for such a provision, but where asked for, a suitable clause has readily been agreed.

Mr. Bossom: Is the hon. Lady aware that you cannot do it in London; and why should people around London be able to do it, and people in London not be allowed to do it?

Miss Horsbrugh: At any rate, this matter is decided by the local authority. Model by-laws have no legal force, and if any local authority wants a by-law on this subject, permission is given by the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Bossom: Will the hon. Lady make a recommendation to the local authorities that it is essential and see that it is done, as it is required to be done in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIEUT.-COLONEL CYRIL ROCKE

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Attorney-General whether steps will be taken to transfer the case of Lieut.-Colonel Rocke, who is alleged to have given aid and comfort to the King's enemies in Italy, from the military authorities to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a view to ascertaining the desirability of instituting proceedings for high treason.

The Solicitor-General (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I understand that Colonel Rocke has been arrested and is being held by the Security Branch of the Allied Control Commission in Rome while his case is being thoroughly investigated. Until the result of this investigation is available, my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible to make any statement.

Mr. Hogg: While I do not ask for any statement about the merits of the case, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this case is bound to be one of a series, some of which will affect

people under military law and some of which will affect people under the ordinary law; and is it not desirable to put the whole lot under the Director of Public Prosecutions, rather than some under military authorities and some under his own Department?

The Solicitor-General: The stage at which a case is placed before the Director of Public Prosecutions must, as my hon. Friend knows, depend on the circumstances of each case. I have explained the position in which this case is, and the point which my hon. Friend seeks to make is being kept closely under examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER TEATS

Mr. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that rubber dummy teats are being sold in drug stores and peddled by canvassers to chemists; that there appears to be a prodigality of rubber prophylactic goods; that many chemists are unable to obtain necessary supplies of teats and valves for feeding bottles; and whether, in view of the importance of the latter in the interests of national health, some inquiry will be made into the general position of priorities for pharmaceutical rubber goods with a view to an early adjustment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): As my hon. Friend was informed yesterday, the manufacture of rubber dummy teats is prohibited. I would remind him that, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, arrangements have recently been made to increase raw materials available to manufacturers of rubber teats and valves.

Mr. Hynd: Is not the Minister aware that, although the manufacture of dummy rubber teats has been prohibited, they are still being openly peddled round druggists' shops and in many cases have all the appearance of having been adapted from bottle teats which chemists are unable to obtain for bottles already in stock?

Captain Waterhouse: I am aware such allegations have been made and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is having the matter looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY (SHOOTING)

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider printing suitable translations of the Foreign Secretary's statement of 23rd June concerning the murder of British prisoners of war in Germany and arrange for these translations to be posted, without comment, in every German and Italian camp in this country.

Mr. A. Henderson: Translations of the Foreign Secretary's statement of 23rd June will be published prominently in the camp newspapers. This is considered a more suitable method of presentation than by the use of posters.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (CITIZENSHIP CLASSES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the same kind of pictorial propaganda posters used to encourage subscription to War Loan will also be employed to emphasise the civil responsibility of men and women in the Forces; and whether he will have posters of this character issued for display in camps, aerodromes, naval stations and elsewhere.

Mr. A. Henderson: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the instruction in citizenship which is given in most units of the Army for one hour a week during working or training time. A number of pictorial aids has been issued for use in connection with this instruction and the further display of such aids will be considered. I understand that the practice in the other Services is broadly similar.

Mr. Sorensen: Yes, but might I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether this method of drawing the attention of the men to their civic responsibility could not equally be used to emphasise the need to sign their election cards? Why cannot the same kind of publicity be employed in that direction as in regard to War Bonds?

Mr. Henderson: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Sorensen: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the content of my supplementary question is within the original

Question? Further, may I point out this, that the Question I put forward first was directed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs because it covers the three Services, Under those circumstances, what should have been my course—to put down three Questions or, on the other hand, for my hon. and learned Friend to reply for all three Services?

Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure, but I should think that the hon. Gentleman might put down some Questions again. If one keeps on trying one never knows what one may achieve.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Financial Secretary amplify his remarks?

Mr. Henderson: What I said in reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question was that his reference to difficulties arising in connection with the registration of soldiers for the purpose of voting was an entirely different question from whether we were using pictorial aids in order to foster the interest of soldiers in their civic responsibility.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely the best civic responsibility is focussed on this question of registration. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps, therefore, to consider this matter sympathetically?

Mr. Henderson: I am always prepared to examine any suggestion made by an hon. Member of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (MASS DEPORTATIONS OF JEWS)

Mr. Silverman: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the mass deportation of Jews now proceeding from Hungary to Poland for the purpose of massacre; whether he can say how many have been slaughtered in this way in recent weeks, and whether there are any steps which the United Nations can take to prevent in the moment of victory the total annihilation of European Jewry by Hitlerite Germany.

Mr. Eden: As regards the first and second points raised by my hon. Friend, I fear I have no definite information, though there are, I greatly regret to say, strong indications from various reliable sources that the German and Hungarian authorities have already begun these


barbarous deportations and that in the course of them many persons have been killed. As regards the third point, there are unfortunately no signs that the repeated declarations made by His Majesty's Government in association with the other United Nations of their intention to punish the instigators and perpetrators of these frightful crimes have moved the German Government and their Hungarian accomplices either to allow the departure of even a small proportion of their victims or to abate the fury of their persecution. The principal hope of terminating this tragic state of affairs must remain the speedy victory of the Allied nations.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether such information as he has tends in any way to confirm the figures which have been given in some quarters, namely, that in recent days the number deported amounted to 400,000, of whom the number killed amounts already to 100,000? Has he any information that the Hungarian Government have recently called upon their various police presidents to speed up the process so that it may be completed within the next 20 days?

Mr. Eden: I have not heard anything on the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary questions. In this terrible business I would really rather not give figures unless one is absolutely sure, because it is bad enough, God knows, without doing that. We have done all we can and we shall do all we can. I might say that his Holiness the Pope made some representations a little while ago, and the House probably knows that the King of Sweden has already made an appeal. I am bound to say that the action and attitude of the Hungarian Government is one that fills this country with loathing.

Mr. Silverman: While appreciating to the full my right hon. Friend's sympathy and constructive activity in this matter, may I ask does he realise that the Jewish community in Hungary is now the last remaining Jewish community in Europe? If any further appeal can be made—not to the butcher gang now running German affairs but to the Hungarian Government who, in the past, have not resorted to this sort of activity except under German pressure—might not that still be made?

Mr. Eden: I have considered that, and I agree that the previous record of the Hungarian Government makes this so much more terrible a story. The last representations we made, the hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember, were actually in reply to a statement which he made endorsing the initiative of President Roosevelt. That was as lately as last March. I do not think we can add anything to that, although we shall, of course, use the B.B.C. to bring home to the Hungarian Government the feelings of this House and the nation on the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Could not a direct appeal be made to the Hungarian people by the United Nations through the B.B.C. and other channels to defend these Jews against this persecution?

Mr. Eden: That has been done and is being done. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that it was as a result of the declaration made in Moscow that the original appeal was made, but I will consider a further appeal.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is not the important thing first to ascertain the facts?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I agree. That was why I was not willing to give figures, but there can be no doubt in the main as to what is going on.

Mr. Graham White: Might it not serve a useful purpose if His Majesty's Government were to associate themselves formally with the representations made by the Government of the United States of America and by the King of Sweden?

Mr. Eden: We have, Sir. We have been completely in step with the United States about that. The position of the King of Sweden is, of course, different from that of the United States Government, as he is the head of a neutral country.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL REPORTED

AGRICULTURAL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.

Minutes of Evidence to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 91].

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL)

"to extend the making of contributions under section one of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, as respects new housing accommodation provided by local authorities before the first day of October, 1947; and to suspend temporarily the holding of local inquiries in respect of certain compulsory purchase orders"; presented by Mr. Willink, supported by Mr. Assheton and Miss Horsbrugh; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 34].

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House will remember, the provisions for financial assistance to the herring industry expired on 31st March of this year. Earlier, at the outbreak of war, by Defence Regulation, the majority of the Herring Industry Board's powers had been suspended and the Board itself placed on what was practically a care and maintenance basis. During the war, Mr. Speaker, four-fifths of the total steam drifter fleets, and one-third of our motor herring vessels, have been requisitioned by the Service authorities. The fleet now consists in the main of very old boats manned by elderly men and boys. Nine-tenths of the steam drifters are over 23 years old, and half of them are more than 3o years old. Fishing for herrings is confined to-day to Scottish waters. The East Anglian fishing, again for Service reasons, has been entirely suspended.
Between 1913 and 1938 there was a continual process of depreciation in the catching power of our herring fleet. Steam drifters in 1913 were 1,470 in number; by 1938, they had been reduced to 685. The total catch was diminished in almost similar proportion. The fall of herring consumption in the home market was about 40 per cent. between 1913 and 1938 and the fall in consumption in the foreign market of British produced herring was about 60 per cent. The home market improved considerably as a result of the propaganda and other efforts of the Herring Industry Board in the years immediately before the war. When the war broke out we had about 7,300 Scots fishermen and about 2,800 Englishmen, making a total of 9,80o engaged full-time in the production of herring, In addition to that, we had 30,000 workers engaged in ancillary industries —coopering, kippering, gutting, net manufacturing and so on. The total catch of these 9,80o men was about 5,000,000 hundred weight, equal to—and this is a remarkable figure—about 25 tons of food per man per annum.
The Elliot Committee, about which I will say a word in a moment, noted that the catch brought under British control equalled about half the import of South American meat for this country. These fishermen are brave, hardy and lovable men:
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters.
Hon. Members who have read Mr. Neil Gunn's book "The Silver Darlings" will remember his graphic pen-picture of the dangers and hardships these men must undergo in the pursuit of their calling. They have asked little from society in either amenity or comfort, but they contributed very much indeed to our naval and Mercantile Marine strength, and they have played a most noteworthy part in preserving our food import lifeline to this country. Previous loans granted to them by the Herring Industry. Board have been repaid with scrupulous anxiety and precision. Indeed, I believe that there is only about £4,000 outstanding on all the previous loans.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is the amount of the total loans granted?

Mr. Johnston: Speaking from memory, I think it is about £110,000. That then was the problem with which we were faced—a diminishing catch of most valuable food, ancient and outmoded boats, and gear and equipment practically gone, and a splendid and hardy population asking neither for charity nor for the dole, but only an opportunity to pursue their avocation and their calling on the seas in return for nothing but a modest and honourable recompense.
The Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the problems of the herring industry in post-war years. The first chairman of that Committee was Colonel Colville, an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland. When he went away to a post in India his place was taken by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and I would like to express on behalf of Members in all parts of this House our gratitude to my right hon. and gallant Friend for the vigour and determination with which he pursued the inquiries of his Committee and kept its members together, despite a most distressing physical accident from which he suffered. My

right hon. and gallant Friend got his Committee to bring forward a unanimous Report and following that Report we have this Bill. Many of the recommendations in the Report do not require legislation; they can be dealt with under the existing powers by administrative act. But for such parts of the recommendations of the Committee as require legislation this Bill, I think, meets them all entirely.
Clause 1 provides for grants up to a total of £820,000 towards the provision of boats, nets and gear. The grants may be made in each case up to one-third of the total cost. This provision of grants for nets and gear is new; there was no such provision under the previous Acts. The powers of this Clause are to last for a five-years' period and they increase the amount available for grants from £250,000 to £820,000. Grants will be made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in England and Wales, the Home Secretary, acting for Northern Ireland, and by myself, on the recommendation of the Herring Industry Board in cases where a boat or the necessary equipment cannot be provided out of a man's own resources without such assistance. It is anticipated that there will be very few cases where men returning to the industry from the Services or other war work will be able to equip themselves with boats and gear without assistance. Assistance towards the replacement of old boats and equipment is also provided for under the Bill.
By Clause 2—an important Clause—it will be competent for the Board, when their powers are restored to them, to make schemes, subject to approval by Ministers and by affirmative Resolutions in Parliament, for the following purposes not covered by the existing Acts: by Subsection (1) (a) power is taken to prepare schemes for the purchasing of boats by the Board, for the equipment of boats and for chartering, for the hire of these boats to fishermen. This is an experimental Clause and the amount allotted for the experiment is £50,000. It is not sought to change fundamentally the structure of the industry, but already there are many and varied types of owners and employment in the industry, and it has been urged upon the Committee, and by the Committee upon the Government, and by fishermen's associations upon the Government, that this power is necessary to fill up gaps in certain cases.
Secondly, by paragraph (b) power is taken to prepare schemes for the refrigeration and, processing of herring in order to avoid gluts. Nothing strikes the public imagination more than herring, even in very small quantities, being thrown back into the sea. Waste of food is indefensible, and it will be more indefensible in the years that are to be. Power is taken by this paragraph to arrange for refrigeration and processing. I will say a word later about the steps which the Ministry of Food have already taken in this matter. The Board are also to be empowered to act as principals themselves in special cases when it is clearly beyond the normal capacity of the trade to deal with a glut. In an emergency the Board has power to step in to deal with it. Laboratory experiments have gone a good way in both the dehydration and freezing processes.
I am sure that many hon. Members have seen, as I have seen, the experiments that have been going on at the Torry Research Station at Aberdeen. They are most remarkable. Experiments in freezing, dehydration and other processing of herring have been carried out there by Dr. Rae and his team of assistants, under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and with very considerable success on a laboratory basis. Studies and experiments have been going on for a number of years,, in close collaboration with the Scottish Home Department and the Herring Industry Board, with a view to ensuring a supply of herring throughout the year. As recommended by the Committee, experiments in freezing and dehydration on a semi-commercial scale have been arranged by the Minister of Food with Dr. Rae as his technical adviser. That is a most hopeful and encouraging experiment. It is proposed to begin by handling five cran per day, increasing later to ten cran per day. First supplies of herring have already been frozen and placed in cold store at varying temperatures, to be tested in due course. The plant for dehydration is already in working order at Aberdeen. I have had some difficulty in finding out exactly how many fish are in a cran.

Mr. Loftus: A thousand.

Mr. Johnston: No. It varies. A cran is a measure of volume. "Cran" is a

Gaelic word which means a "lot" or "share," and it is a measure of volume and not a measure of weight. It varies according to the size of the fish from three and a half cwt. in Scotland to three and three-quarter cwt. in England, because of the smaller fish in the English catches. The home consumption of herring before the last war was 1,000,000 cran per annum. In 1932 this had dropped to 550,000 cran, and the catch before the present war represented only about one herring per fortnight for each person in the United Kingdom. Here is a first-class foodstuff. Its energy value is as high as the energy value of salmon.

Mrs. Hardie: It does not taste so good.

Mr. Johnston: It is much better and more attractive, and when properly cooked, as we hope it will be, it should become a much more common dish with our people. The cost of dehydration, up to now, has been about one-third of a penny per herring, and that will all be saved, and more than saved, in the costs of distribution. The actual cost of freezing is, I am told, less than one halfpenny per pound. There is, therefore, no difficulty whatever on the cost side in stopping this tragic waste of a first-class food.
Paragraph (c) gives power to the Board to regulate the standards of quality of the fish refrigerated. Already the Board have power under the Act of 1938 to regulate standards of quality for processing, and now they get additional powers to regulate standards for refrigeration. The next paragraph gives power to levy contributions
In respect of any port or area, out of the proceeds of first sales of fresh herring, that is to say, the first completed sales wholesale after the herring have been caught, and to make payments to herring fishermen in that port or area in order to obviate so far as possible undue differences in their earnings.
Let me explain briefly what that means. Every hon. Member who is acquainted with the economic conditions of herring fishing is aware that frequently the first boats to arrive with their catches get what is called the cream of the market prices. The later boats do not get so high prices, and sometimes only derisory prices, and sometimes the fish are taken back to sea and dumped rather than sold for the miserable prices which are available. The in-


dustry itself has attempted for years, on a voluntary basis, here and there, to regulate and equalise prices, and there have been efforts at Fraserburgh and Peterhead to see whether voluntary levies could not be made upon the more prosperous catches and prices and the money devoted to a pool and that pool distributed among those with the less remunerative catches. By and large, great attempts have been made. There were voluntary schemes in 1938 and 1939, on different lines from those tried previously, but on all hands His Majesty's Government are assured that compulsory powers will have to be taken to ensure that individuals who will not play the game shall be brought into the scheme. The necessity for this is obvious. My figures here show than in Lerwick fish was sold at 5s. a cran. At Fraserburgh, the difference between the first arrival and the last was 26s. a cran—the first arrival got 46s. and the last 2os. That kind of thing does not make for an organised industry. The Ministry of Food to-day are naturally regulating prices.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: They did not last year.

Mr. Johnston: I know, but, by and large, the Ministry of Food have equalised prices. They have done a great deal to level things out, and I think they are to be highly commended for their efforts in that direction. Of course, there are obvious holes to be plugged up, and that is the purpose of this Clause in the Bill.
Clause 3 is a financial Clause. It provides £75,000 for administrative expenses over five years. It provides £175,000, again to be spread over five years, for all the purposes specified in Clause 3 (2), that is, for promoting the market and development, promoting sales of herrings, promoting schemes for the revival of winter fishing, buying boats, and so on. In addition, there will be a slight revenue from licensing fees and moneys from forced sales. Under Clause 4, the Board may get advances from the Treasury on loan. They may get £200,000 for marketing, and about £1,500,000 for other purposes specified in the Clause—£400,000 more than the Elliot Committee recommended. On the advice given to us we think that an adequate development of this market and this industry will require large and adequate financial resources. When they begin to operate commercially,

as they may do later on, when they get powers, they can operate in the open market temporarily for that purpose. Under Clause 5, Ministers take powers to extend the operation of this Bill from five to eight years if they can show good reason to Parliament for so doing. If they can bring in an Order and lay it on the * Table of this House and the other place, and show good reasons for so doing, they may extend the operation of this Bill, as I have said, from five to eight years. It is not proposed to give the Herring Industry Board all the powers in this Bill forthwith. They will begin, we hope, to prepare their schemes in the closest consultation with every section of the trade and industry. This Bill is necessary in order that the Board may be in a position to do that, so that they may act right away, when the whistle blows, for the rehabilitation and development of the industry.
The functions of the Board, as I have said, in the first instance will be of an advisory and preparatory nature. It will be necessary to confer on the Board powers in relation to the productive side of the industry, and any resumption of their functions in respect to distribution will, of course, have to be co-ordinated with the general decontrol of food and with post-war marketing and commodity arrangements. It is not intended that any powers in relation to marketing and distribution handled directly by the Ministry of Food should now be conferred upon the Board, or conferred upon it while the emergency food control continues.
I do not intend to delay the House much longer as I know many hon. Members want to speak. All I can say about this Measure is that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, it has been accepted with almost complete concurrence by every section of the industry. There are, of course, difficulties. People want to be sure of their personal position, and so on, but, by and large, this Measure is accepted by the herring industry as absolutely essential if the industry is to live. I am very glad indeed to have been the recipient of a telegram which says:
As chairman of the Clyde Fishmen's Association I wish you, on behalf of the members, Good-speed with the Herring Industry Bill. If action follows in the same spirit as the Bill, it will become known as the Fisher-men's Charter. On behalf of all the Clyde fishermen. (Signed) The Provost of Campbeltown.


It gives me great pleasure to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is proposed to reconstitute the Herring Board personnel?

Mr. Johnston: The matter of personnel is one on which the Ministers have not yet decided. We have to get this Bill through first.

Mr. Loftus: I should like to say quite clearly that I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. I want to make my position plain in view of the fact that when the 1938 Bill was before the House, I felt it incumbent on me to move its rejection, and to vote against the Money Resolution. I adopt an entirely different attitude towards this Bill to-day. May I say in passing that I think all of us who are interested in the herring industry owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Committee who drew up that admirable report? I think it is an admirable report and that for many years it will be a guide-book and text-book for all sections of the industry. Speaking from memory of the dark days, 10 years ago, when this industry was in desperate straits, I would like also to pay my tribute to the sympathy I received from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who was then the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
I particularly welcome the presence on the Front Bench to-day of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Sometimes we forget that he is Minister for Fisheries as well as Agriculture, and for many years past I have advocated that he should have, and still hope that some day he may have, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary specially devoting himself to the fisheries of England and Wales. I particularly welcome his presence here to-day, because I remember that in 1938, during all stages of the last Herring Industry Bill, the English Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was conspicuous by its absence of representation on the Front Bench throughout all the proceedings—the Committee stage, the First and Second Readings. This inevitably led to the suspicion, however unjustified, among the English herring fisheries, that the Department in England had washed their hands of all interest in the matter and handed it over to the Scottish Office.
May I add, in passing, that the borough of Lowestoft is the largest herring port in the whole of Great Britain, if you take the number of herring boats registered in the port, or the number of herring fishermen domiciled in, or in the immediate neighbourhood, of the port. While the number of English herring boats is a good deal' smaller than the number of Scottish, in pre-war days our English herring boats always went on the Scottish fishing and we caught nearly half the total catch of herrings in the British Isles. I say this not in any way to invite disunity between the Scottish and English fisheries, because the one thing we all recognise is that all sections of this trade must pull together and help each other.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask my hon. Friend a question? Is that not because there is no herring fishing on Sundays?

Mr. Loftus: I would not enter into these Sabbatarian difficulties. Clause r, line 13, refers to: "Grants to such fishermen". Can my right hon. Friend inform me whether such grants would go to private companies or to share partnerships? The English herring trade is so organised that most of the boats are owned by companies or partnerships. When one mentions the words "limited companies" they conjure up visions of finance, the Stock Exchange, and all those modern evils, but these are small private companies. The average number of boats in an English company is five. I know of five or six companies with two boats and one with only one boat. What happens is this. A man works his way up and becomes a skipper and buys a boat. In prosperous days he buys another, and so on, and, for purely family reasons, forms a private company. One such company in Lowestoft has seven boats. This company was formed by a man who started in a humble way and rose to a prominent position. Out of his seven boats, four had as their skippers his four sons. I take it that such companies would not be eligible for grants. Then we have the share partnership where, perhaps, the widow of the skipper who bought the boat has so many shares in the partnership. Perhaps the daughter-in-law and somebody else have some shares. Would they be eligible for grants? If not, would they be eligible for a loan? I would be much


obliged if my right hon. Friend could reply to these questions.
With regard to Clause 2 I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the most interesting experiments now taking place in Aberdeen. Before the war I saw the icing of herrings at Lowestoft and I felt then that it had a big future and would help to deal with this question of glut. I hope there will be widespread research into the new methods of dealing with herring. Page 27 of the Report says:
Methods of curing have altered little in the past century.
I feel that there is an enormous prospect for research into new and better methods of presenting herrings of all kinds to the British public. In Holland, before the war, we got an enormous variety of herrings, among them spring herrings, an admirable dish never seen in England. I hope, therefore, we shall have many results from those experiments.
In Clause 2 also power is given to regulate the standard of quality of the herring before and after refrigeration. I welcome that, but I would like still bigger powers for regulating. standards of quality of other fish such as kippers. May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to the following passage on page 24 of the Report:
A good kipper is an inexpensive luxury appreciated by everyone, but all too often a kipper that looks desirable, proves disappointing in quality and flavour.
It goes on:
There are some curers whose practices are extremely detrimental to the sales of this important product.
It should be said quite openly, however unpopular it is, that the kipper industry, the quality of kippers and the esteem in which the public hold kippers have been damaged, and damaged irretrievably, by the invention of this abominable dyed kipper. I know of two or three cases where people have given up eating kippers, because they did not like the flavour, and found them indigestible. I recommended them to a place where they could buy the genuine smoked kipper. They ordered some, and have gone on ordering them for years. I hope power will be given to prohibit this fake substitute of the genuine kipper and, if no such power is in the Bill, I hope to be able to put down an Amendment to effect it.
As regards the promoting of the sale of herrings, both at home and abroad, I hope it will be realised that for four, five or six years after the war there will be an enormous demand for herrings in Europe from the semi-starving peoples, but during- those years let everybody connected with the industry concentrate all their energies on devising new markets overseas. That is our opportunity. During that period do not let us be distracted by The market immediately before us. While supplying that market let us think and plan always for the period when Europe will be fully supplied and when we shall have developed new markets overseas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that £110,000 of the £600,000 authorised under the 1935 Act had actually been used as loans. Why was not more used? I have heard that the Treasury made the conditions so onerous that the herring industry could get better conditions from the banks. It is certainly a remarkable thing that out of the £600,000 allocated for loans, only one-sixth was used.
I hope some attention will be given to that in the future. The industry must attract the young men after the war. We have to provide reasonable remuneration, with a chance at times, as we used to have 20 or 30 years ago, of big remuneration. We must have continuous employment. I think we should consider the dual purpose vessel, the drifter trawler, so that in the herring season they drift and the rest of the year they can use it for trawling. Finally, we must give these young men who go into the industry the chance that people had 30 or 40 years ago of working up and becoming owners of one vessel and gradually of more.
What kind of boats will the Board recommend? The report mentions that the Admiralty have been building boats that may be suitable. I do not believe that any of them will be suitable for the North Sea herring trade. There are some wooden boats. They are built, of necessity, of green wood. There were wooden boats built in the last war, and same of the herring people got them, but they were hopeless. We had to put in new wood and, after two years, more new wood. They were so heavy and unmanageable that they were useless. I feel that the tendency will be to recommend oil fuel.
I hope it will not be 100 per cent. oil. We must not judge steam-boats by 3o year-old, out-of-date vessels. Methods of using coal are improving enormously. There are such things as powdered coal. The National Physical Laboratory, by one alteration in the hull of a vessel, reduced coal consumption by 25 per cent. There are all kinds of possibilities for coal. In 1938 I pointed out how foolish it would be to concentrate on oil for supplying our herring fleets, which might have to produce food in time of war, when we should be dependent on imported fuel. Leaving aside the questions of war and defence, we are faced with the difficulty of paying for our imports. Our ears are deafened with the cry, "We must export more and more to pay for imports." Why make our new herring fleet dependent on imported fuel when we can produce the fuel in our own country and use it by modern methods economically? I trust that that point will receive the attention of the Research Board, and also that they will glance at the question of producer gas, which has been used abroad in vessels up to 1,000 tons with some success.
I do not despair, by any means, of the future of this fine industry either in Scotland or in England. It has been through very dark days. It has been grossly neglected. I remember going on deputations to the Admiralty in the years before the war, asking for help, and they told us that our drifters were utterly useless for war purposes. But immediately war came three-quarters of them were commandeered, and their skippers went out on what was called "the suicide patrol" in these old boats, and they were magnificent. I have heard stories of their heroism, facing bombs and mines in these out-of-date boats. I shall never forget 10 days in October, 1934, when the sea off East Anglia was thick with herring. You could go out in a rowing boat and scoop them up in a bucket. There were 7,000 or 8,000 fishermen walking about the streets of Lowestoft and Yarmouth idle. The fleets were kept in port and these men were breaking their hearts, wondering what would happen to their families. They stopped me in the streets and said, "For God's sake do something." That kind of thing must not happen again. I believe this Bill will help enormously to ensure that it will not happen again. I believe also that after

the war we shall not judge everything, as of old, by purely material, economic tests. We shall judge of industries by the quality and type of men they produce. Judged by that test, our fishing industry produces the finest type—men of courage, endurance and initiative, men who display in peace and in war the highest qualities whch have made our people a great nation.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I welcome the Bill because of our knowledge of the very hard times which fishermen generally have experienced in the past. I welcome it also, because, once again, we are dealing with the first producer. It is remarkable that, as time goes by, we have been driven to the conclusion that the producer of the raw material must come into his own. He has not had his own up to now. I am glad that we have men in the Government like the Minister of Agriculture, who has endeavoured to put the first producer of raw material and food on an equality and on terms of fair play with those who have to handle the finished article. The Bill will give scope and enlargement to the Marketing Act. It is sometimes forgotten that it was a Labour Government, and a minority Government, which brought in the Marketing Act. It is under that Act that we are going to get some very considerable advantage for the fishermen of England. What a splendid work they have done during the war. I wonder how we should have managed without them to man our minesweepers, and how we should have kept our coasts open for our food supplies. Therefore, let us be done with mouthing nice phrases. Let us be done with paying homage during crises and forgetting what has been done when the crises have passed. That is what we used to do. I am prepared to do my best to prevent a repetition of that when the war is over. I welcome the Bill because I believe we are on the right lines.
I want to add my thanks for the White Paper under the chairmanship of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieutenant-Colonel Elliot). It is a splendid paper. There is not a great deal of whitewashing in it. It points to the weaknesses that exist in regard to the herring fishing industry. The Board proposes to deal with processing. I am very anxious that that should be


done. I believe there is tremendous scope in regard to processing for herring. I sometimes wonder when I see the figures of the low sales of herring. What I wonder at, is that so few people get the opportunity to buy them. The White Paper says that low standard countries seem to buy them in great quantities, and they are the greatest market for our export. When I was young it was quite common among the working classes, especially in the North of England, to have a barrel of salt herring for the winter. Undoubtedly we did it largely because of the low standard of living of our people. My grandfather was a highly-skilled engine man, who had the lives of thousands of men in his hands. My grandmother many a time said she thought her fortune was made when she got 21S. a week to keep her family. It was necessary then, to pickle herrings to take us through the winter.
In those days people did not know anything about vitamins A, B, C, and D. The only thing they knew, the good old-fashioned housewives of the North of England, was to give the bairns something to eat and keep their tummies filled. "Do it when they are young and it will be there when they are old." We know about vitamins now. Therefore, it seems to me that whatever the income standard of the household to-day, if we can process herrings to a quality that the Board will determine, the demand should be tremendous. I was speaking to a real fisherman this week-end, a man who has followed the seas out of our Northern fishing villages for years, and he told me a remarkable thing. From the White Paper I gather that the difference between herring, halibut and cod is that, while the oil is in the liver of the halibut and the cod, it is in the flesh of the herring. This man told me that in the fishing season they boiled fish when they were at sea and had meals of the fish, and he never need put his coat on when he was fishing herring. That speaks very highly for the quality of the herring as a food.
With regard to marketing, is not this "the nigger in the wood pile," so far as our fishermen are concerned? The White Paper speaks of the monopolistic tendencies of importers overseas. It speaks of the weaknesses of human nature on this side in under-selling and the breaking of markets, even when they have had

gentlemen's agreements. There is nothing new in that. We suffered from it in the coal trade years ago. I remember that in the Merchant Service before the war there was an endeavour to get an agreed freight, and things went on beautifully until somebody broke the market. We had a gentlemen's agreement in the coal trade, and then somebody sold a big parcel of coal below the market price and down it came. The provision in this Bill in regard to marketing is a very good one, because human nature is so prone to err.
When self the wavering balance holds 'Tis rarely right adjusted.
It is well that there should be a fraternal hand that will prevent poor erring mortals from wrecking and ruining a whole industry.
Much is to be said in regard to the equalising of prices. I was rather struck with some prices which I have taken from the White Paper. In 1934 the weight of herring in Great Britain is given as 4,786,914 cwts., at a value of £1,593,360. I worked that out as amounting to five-sevenths of a penny per pound. No industry could run on that. In 1942 the weight was 1,360,579 cwts., and the value was £1,820,625, or two and seven-eighths of a penny per pound. That is something like a fair price. The price per cran was £4 12S. The Ministry of Food, which has done such splendid work in preventing profiteering, has fixed the price for herring at 7d. per pound. I have never heard anybody begrudging that. I can say without any reservation that if we could again hear in our villages that old cry, "Caller herrin'," herrings would sell like anything. I remember the time when the moment the fish-seller entered one end of the village, with the cry of "Caller herrin'," the housewives were there with their dishes and plates.
I hope things will be different from what they are now, especially for the home sales of fish. I am largely interested in home sales because when we talk of the food shortages in Europe owing to the devastation, we must hot forget that we may have them here too. Therefore, herrings will be of great value to us. Taking a cran at 28 stone, it works out, at 7d. per pound, to per cran. My right hon. Friend said there was a great mystery about what a cran is. I understand that a basket is seven stone and


there are four baskets in a cran. I hope that in equalising prices, the Board will have power to see that the retailer and the fishermen get fair prices, and I hope there will not be too wide a margin between the wholesale price and the price the consumer has to pay. When there is too wide a margin, it does as much harm as anything to the fishing industry.
I am interested in the question of dehydration. I have never tasted dehydrated herrings, but some of my friends who have, tell me they are first-rate. With a fish that has not long keeping qualities, dehydration provides a splendid opportunity for dealing with gluts of herrings. The freezing process is in its experimental stages, but there are great hopes for it. Has any thought been given to another freezing process which is growing in this country? Those of us who visited the Portal house were struck by the provision of a refrigerator. If we are to have refrigerators in the Portal houses, surely we will have them in the permanent houses. If we have them in the 4,000,000 houses that will have to be built, the saving in food will be enormous. Lately I have had to try to make a bottle of milk last three days, but often it went off on the second day. If I had had a refrigerator, I would have been able to save it. Would it not be nice if we could buy herrings and put them in a refrigerator where they could remain until they were wanted? We must certainly see that refrigerators are put into every house.
The great problem is to avoid waste. We have all heard of fish being thrown into the sea while people have gone hungry. Imagine one of our convoys coming back from across the Atlantic, after passing through U-boat infested waters and stormy weather, and on reaching our shores seeing herrings dumped into the sea because the price was wrong. I remember being struck as a boy with an incident in London's book "The Valley of the Moon." Roberts, one of the characters in that book, was on strike against a vicious system and, hungry, he went down to the harbour. There in the water he saw thousands of melons. He thought he was all right, but he found that they had all been nicked to allow the salt water to get into them because to put them on the market would spoil the price. Is it not a terrible thing that we have to dump into the sea the gifts that God has

given us because it would spoil the price to put them on the market, when, at the same time, there are people who would be glad to have them?
I conclude by making a suggestion with regard to the lines of demarcation within which our men have to fish. The town in which I live is one of the greatest ports in the North of England. At one time, it had a thriving fishing industry. I do not know who took it away, but I suppose it was some of the vested interests. There are still, however, men fishing from that port. The line of demarcation is above the port and the fishermen have two ports of discharge. One is Seahouses and the other is Berwick. Seahouses is a dandy little place, but there are occasions when there has to be considerable waiting because of the tide. At a port like Blythe, they can fish in any tide. Our train services are better than those of Shields—although I am not trying to state a case against Shields. Would it not be wise to let one of the boats come into Blythe for the local distribution, and thus save petrol, transport and everything else, in addition to supplying the local market? I suggest that that idea might be brought to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I have the greatest possible pleasure in welcoming the Bill. I am sure it will be of great benefit to the industry. I thank my right hon. Friend, and am glad that he has had the honour of introducing it.

Mr. Jewson: The Bill, coming as it does on the top of the admirable Command Paper 6503, is certainly to be welcomed as a recognition, tardy perhaps, of the national importance of the fishing industry. The great value of the industry to the country lies, I think, in the fact that it provides for the training of our seafaring men. Some people have thought that that importance would fade away with the tremendous development we have seen in recent years in air power, but recent events have shown us that, in spite of development of air power, the sea is still of as great importance as ever to us, as a bar to our enemies and as a road to ourselves. I do not think that henceforward we shall fait to realise how great an asset it is to these islands and the corresponding importance to us of the race of seafaring men, of whom we have been so proud in the past.
As the right hon. Gentleman who opened the proceedings to-day said in his speech, the fishermen not only "go down to the sea in ships", but they also "do business in great waters." The second reason why I welcome the Bill is that it gives recognition to the importance of what those men produce in food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said, most of us regret that fisheries are tacked on, as it were, to the end of the Ministry of Agriculture. We think that they deserve something better—but possibly this is neither the time nor the place to argue that point. The Ministry of Agriculture are mainly concerned with seeing to the growth and the production of crops. Fisheries are a harvest only, of a crop which is produced for us free, gratis and for nothing; and perhaps, because harvest comes after sowing, fisheries have been inclined to be neglected while other matters have been attended to. I do not believe, after the introduction of this Bill, that that will happen in future.
The Bill is backed by an imposing list of Ministers. I was rather surprised to find that the Minister of Health was not among them, seeing that herring have been described by an eminent authority as
ideal for keeping the body healthy and resistant to disease.
I hope that the Ministers who are responsible will enlist the Minister of Health as well, to do some propaganda for our home markets on those lines. I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Duchy is one of those whose names appear on the Bill, because F take it that the herring will be kept well forward in the arrangements made by U.N.R.R.A. in the feeding of Europe. That will be a great help to us in getting off the mark when the war is over. With regard to the proposals in the Bill for helping the industry, I have only to say that I hope the help will not be hampered by too many or too severe restrictions. Our fishermen are an independent lot. They do not want to be spoon-fed. All they ask is that we should clear up for them the conditions produced by the war. I suggest that it is urgent for our own sake to get this industry into full employment at the earliest possible moment. We want to look at the matter from the national point of view and realise that it is important from that point of

view, and not as if we were making a gift to some individual fishermen.
I have been asked very strongly by my constituents to stress the point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft in his admirable speech, about fishing which is carried on by companies. The description in the Bill of those who are' to receive grants is: "fishermen and persons." It is possible that we may be told that "persons" includes those who carry on fishing by means of companies. If not, we shall have to press to have the point put right at some stage in our consideration of the Bill. I hope that we shall be told quite definitely whether those who work their fishing through companies are included, or are intended to be included, in the benefits of the Bill, or whether they have been excluded intentionally; or, what I think is most probable, seeing that these conditions do not apply in Scotland, that they simply have been overlooked.
With regard to the export trade, it is obvious that the Government will have to take a large hand in dealing with it, in the transition period. I expect that the United Nations discussions on currency which are now taking place may affect it in many ways, and I am sure that export credits in some form will be necessary. I stress the point that the Russian market will be very important to us. I asked a Question about this matter not long ago, and I understand that the Board of Trade are actually negotiating at the present time with regard to what goods we are to exchange with Russia. I would like to ask again that it will be made sure that herrings are included in the goods which will be taken by our Russian friends. There are two sorts of market to look after, in exports; one is the old market, which I think we should make for first, partly because, as I think it is agreed, the eating of herrings preserved in salt is an acquired taste. There are countries where that taste has been acquired over many years, and other countries where it has not. The method of packing herring in salt in barrels is the least costly way of preservation, and so we should make sure that we get back, or retain, the market in the countries which have been used to eating herrings in that form. I think that Yarmouth had a particular interest in the Mediterranean trade, a description of which is well given in the White Paper.
There is a list in the White Paper of the various methods of preserving herrings. It is fortunate that the herring lends itself to a great variety of such methods, and the variety is much greater than is set out in the White Paper. I notice that the list does not even include one method which was well known to me just before the war and was very popular in the district in which I live, called the buckling herring. I am encouraged by the provision in the Bill for research and experiment, which are very important indeed. I believe that many new methods of processing can be discovered and that our new markets, if we are to gain them, will probably want new methods.
I suggest here that they need not necessarily be cheap methods. In fact, the cheapness of the herring has in some cases been a handicap to its sale. People have thought that it was not of sufficient importance, as compared with high-priced fish like salmon, of which they were proud to get a bit. The fact that the herring has been cheap has made people almost ashamed to eat it. It is a curious point of view, but I believe it actually exists. It should be remembered, in connection with research and experiment, that even if a process produces a more expensive type of food, it need not necessarily be banned on that account. Speaking as a consumer, I think that the great quality that we want is freshness. In fact, freshness and quality are almost synonymous terms in the case of the herring, which deteriorates very rapidly when out of the water. I am glad that the Bill stresses quality and standards, which are both most important. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to the fact that East Anglian fishing had been completely stopped during the war. I have no doubt that that fact will be borne in mind when we come to the question of rehabilitation and that it will be realised that there will be a very special need for help in Great Yarmouth, and also, of course, in Lowestoft.
It is excellent that this matter is looked at from the start as temporary, and that it is hoped to wind it up within five years. I hope it will not be necessary to extend that time, and that we shall find, at the end of the time, that we have a healthy industry able to stand on its own feet, but nevertheless one which will never in

future be neglected and lost sight of, as has been the case in the past. I hope the Bill will succeed in its object and will usher in an era of prosperity for a very valuable, hard-working and deserving section of our community.

Mr. Francis Beattie: There are many bones in a herring, but there do not seem to be many bones of contention in the Bill. May I, at this point, pay a tribute to the report that has been made by the Elliot Committee and to the good work that the Committee has done? The report smacks of the sea, and recalls to my mind a report in which I had a very personal interest. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that a few months ago I made a reference to that report and that, upon re-reading my speech, I found that I might have created a wrong impression about the work that had been done by the secretaries to that Commission. I would like to say that I cannot find words that could put a high enough value on their work. It would be wrong of me to leave a carelessly spoken passage and not attempt to put it right.
I will not criticise the financial aspect of the Bill. I only say that I think it is 10 years too late and that any finance that comes to help this very excellent industry is only too welcome. The Board is something I would like to say a word upon. I see from the Bill that the Board is to function only on a future date. 'The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) asked whether it would be possible to say anything about the composition of the Board. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to do so, but I would stress that the three independent Members should be paid the highest possible salaries. The chairman should have a salary equal to a top-rate civil servant and the other two should be quite independent. of the industry and have suitable remuneration. I know about the 21 members who composed the Advisory Council, and I think it was suggested by the Sea Fish Commission's report that nine would be a better number. There is no doubt that the Board will have to take quick, and sometimes very skilful, decisions. I regret that they are not to operate until some future date, for what I visualise is that these people should be getting down to work now in order that they can put 500,000


cwts. of cured herring on the breakfast plates of the people of Europe. That is what is wanted.
The problem of marketing has been mentioned many times. There are two markets, home and abroad. I will say this about the market abroad, that that Board will have to find not one high pressure salesman but many. They will have a very difficult task to perform in getting into that market because other countries will be trying to get into the European and Mediterranean markets as well, so it requires very real salesmanship and getting there quickly. Regarding the home market I was greatly struck by paragraph 100 of the Elliot Report, in which it says:
It is at least doubtful if consumers in some large centres of population ever know of indeed, even have known, what it is to enjoy a herring in the very best condition.
I am not a bit surprised at that, and I would like to ask whether the housewives of Great Britain know that the herring is the cleanest little fish that swims in the sea. It is a vegetarian; it feeds off the lush meadows of the sea. As the Secretary of State said, they are rightly called "Silver Darlings." They may not be rich in calories, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) said, they are mighty rich in vitamins. I think they have all the vitamins in the alphabet.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Per pound of herring to pound of egg the calories are, I think, higher for herring than for eggs.

Mr. Beattie: I said that they might not be rich in calories, but that they are mighty rich in Vitamins. That is the point I was making. It is perhaps unfair that I should mention this at this time but the distribution of herrings at present is not very satisfactory. I would like to give an example. One night I was standing in a railway station and herring were being taken out of a railway van and placed on the platform. A strong wind was blowing, and an engine was standing blowing off smoke and steam. The herring were uncovered. I know for a fact that these herring had been caught that morning, had been landed at a port on the Clyde. They were being taken to a town on the Solway Firth. They were uncovered; they would only get into the market of that Solway Firth town the next morning; an entire day and night would

have elapsed before the good burghers of that particular township got the herrings. Were they fresh? I would say they were not. I drew the attention of the Minister of Food to this condition and permits have been granted for herring being sent by rail to be covered. I understand they still go by road uncovered and it is not a very happy way to transport herring or for the fisher folk to expect them to get into the hands of the consumers in a palatable state.
There was one interesting fact that came out many years ago in a survey made on herrings. One of the points that struck me very much was that women of 35—this survey is 10 years old—liked herring, and women under 35 did not. That struck me as being an extremely interesting point. The explanation was quite simple. It was that the women of 35 had been brought up on herring before 1914. They had the taste and knew its value. It was the women under 35 who had not had the taste of herring and did not like the smell of the cooking. It seemed to me valuable to get into the minds of these housewives that herring is of great value.
We have heard something about freezing and dehydration. I was glad to learn, of the progress that has been made in freezing, but I was a little unhappy to find also that it was in an experimental state; I think that is what the Secretary of State for Scotland said. I was going to say to him that I hoped it was economic to freeze. My recollection of freezing fish was that halibut was the only one that was economic, because you could put 2d. or 3d. a pound on the price and no one would notice. The price given is a halfpenny per herring, and I hope every effort will be made to reduce the cost of freezing, as it is so essential to get herring fresh into the homes of the people at the lowest possible cost. No mention was made in the Elliot Report about hygiene. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said about kippers, bcause it is there that hygiene should play a big part. Kippering is done nowadays by dipping the fish in pyrogallic acid, and you can get a rich colour or a light one. After they are dyed they are put on tenterhooks and smoked, but the urgency of the market is such that they are not smoked very well, and there is about two ounces of water in these kippers. They are expected to keep for a certain time. My recollection was


that in the old days a kipper would not keep more than seven days.
All I have to say—I do not want to criticise the industry too much—is that the Board must see that there is very close inspection of these various establishments connected with fishing, particularly at the dyeing stage. It does not do the industry any good for people to know that the dye is not changed more than once in three weeks, in some instances. I hope that will be given attention. I hope it will not be forgotten it is possible to market a kipper in a happy sort of way. For instance, there were all sorts of transparent coverings available before the war, and I hope these will be available again. We have heard something about dumping. That always appears to be news. It is put in the paper in headlines, and all the rest of it. I am glad to see in the Bill that something is dealt with which is just as appalling as dumping, that is, the loss of gear. One does not often read in the Press that in one night a fleet of herring boats may lose £50,000 worth of gear sunk by storm, or because of a great glut of fish sinking the nets. I am very glad to see that provision has been made in the Bill for the purpose of replacing that lost gear. The dumping of herring does not always mean that the herring are good and are being sent back. Very often they are bad herring. An effort should made to retrieve them, not as food for human consumption, but for manufacturing into fish manure or fish meal. They should not be wasted.
One other point is the question of the three-mile limit. I do not know whether I am getting out of Order in bringing this in, but I do wish the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture to pay particular attention and do all in their power——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I do not think that can come in here.

Mr. Beattie: I am sorry. I will turn to Norwegian imports. I see from the Elliot Report that some 300,000 cwts., on an average, in the pre-war years were imported into this country. They could import up to a limit of 500,000 cwts. I understand that one of the reasons for the importation of these Norwegian herring was to maintain what is called the balance

of trade. I do not want to say anything about the Norwegians, but I say this—charity begins at home. There is no lack of gear, catching capacity, fishermen or of herring, but what is very often lacking, in my opinion, is the application of modem methods and discoveries. What are required are ample cold storage facilities in the big herring ports for quick freezing, refrigerated railway and road vans for the proper distribution of fish and a quick-freeze cabinet in every fishmonger's shop. I hope that this Bill will go through quickly and that it will give help and encouragement in plenty to the gallant men and women of a great industry.

Mr. Gallacher: I was very pleased to hear the Minister pay high tribute to those hardy and very generous people who sail the seas in search of food for the people of this country. But my mind goes back to the situation that existed between the wars. The fishermen in my own area, and up in the North of Scotland, were reduced to the depth of poverty, with no apparent hope of getting out of it. The neglect of the fishing industry in the period between the wars is something that cannot in any circumstances be excused. One hon. Member made a reference to the fact that this Bill is To years too late. There is something to be said for that, but in view of the part which the fishermen played in saving this country during the last war, and the immediate part they had to play when this war broke out, it is to be hoped that the neglect experienced by the fishermen in the period between the wars will not be repeated, in any circumstances, when this war is ended. The first Sub-section in the first Clause of the Bill says:
a grant made under this section in respect of any boat or equipment shall not exceed one-third of the total cost thereof;
That may be considered very generous but I remember a question being raised in this House regarding the proposition that had been made and was to be operated in America by which the State would guarantee to men coming back from the Forces so per cent. of a loan up to £1,000. When the war is over, it will not be enough to offer one-third of the cost to fishermen who have not the means of getting a boat. Something of the character of the provision which is


being introduced in America will be required. The Board must be ready to guarantee a loan, if a fisherman requires to negotiate one. It will not be sufficient to pay one-third of the cost. Every step should be taken to ensure fishermen getting the fullest opportunity of engaging in an industry, which is not only important to themselves, but is so important to the people of this country.

Mr. Petheriek: Is the hon. Member advocating that loans should be available, in full, to enable fishermen to buy their own boats?

Mr. Gallacher: Any fisherman who has been giving service during the war should be treated just like the men coming back from the Forces. If a fisherman has only £2 or £3 at the end of the war, and has all the qualifications for using a boat, I would put the Board in a position not only to grant a loan of one-third of the cost, but to guarantee the rest of the loan. Then, if a fisherman wanted to negotiate a loan, he would have no trouble in doing so.

Mr. Petherick: So that he could buy his boat? I am very grateful to the hon. Member for that tribute to capitalism.

Mr. Gallacher: If I had control of the Treasury, wherever there was a qualified fisherman, who had given service in the small boats which are sailing the coast at present, and who wanted a boat, he would get a boat. We come to the question of markets. Not only were the fishermen neglected between the wars, but the Conservatives in this House, the Conservative Press, and the Conservative Government did everything humanly possible to destroy the great Russian market.

Sir Edmund Findlay: That is nonsense.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member is an authority on nonsense.

Sir E. Findlay: May I interrupt, not as an authority on nonsense, but because I have represented the herring fishing industry since 1935, and apart from my Parliamentary position, I have done my best to look after the herring fishing industry? I resent bitterly the hon. Member's statement that the Conservative Government have not done their best for the industry.

Mr. Gallacher: I am quite prepared to accept—in fact, I believe other Members will agree—that the hon. Member has done everything possible for the herring industry. But it is a fact—and I could produce miles of material from the OFFICIAL REPORT—that vile things were said by the Members of the Government, and vile things were said in the Press, and high fates were put on all transactions with Russia—out of all proportion to those for dealings with any other country—and everything possible was done to destroy the great Russian market. I would ask that, in future, Conservative Members of this House and the Conservative Press of this country should try to keep in mind that there is a 20 years' Agreement between this country and the Soviet Union, and that that Agreement provides an opportunity for developing a very big market in many directions. Do not let their anti-Bolshevik venom blind them to that.
I would like to say something about the home market. When I was a very young lad, I used to go down to Saltcoats for a week in the summer holidays. Every morning at five o'clock the quay was crowded with people, waiting for the herring boats to come in. Anyone going there at five o'clock in the morning would find coming from every window and every doorway, in every street, the steam from frying herrings. But in recent years, I have been to one of the Highland fishing ports; and could you get any herring there? No. But if you go there at midnight, you see the lorries come rolling in, and everything is sent away. There are all sorts of ramps going on in connection with herring. The Minister has drawn attention to Clause 2 of the Bill, in which the Board are given power to make a levy where there is unevenness in prices, to smooth things out. In answer to an interjection, the Minister said that the Board had sorted things out considerably, by fixing prices. I do not mind the fishermen owning their own boats, although I am quite in favour of the proposition that the Board should have boats available, to hire out to fishermen who do not own their own boats, but I say that the fishermen can never get justice and security, and the people of this country can never get the food which they ought to get, unless there are control and direction of the industry


in this country. The present position is chaotic.
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) drew attention to the difficulties of getting fish in his own area. Because of the way the market works, the fisherman is at the mercy of all kinds of middlemen. How is it possible to have justice with private enterprise? I insist, again, that I would give every fisherman a boat, without any hesitation; but what sort of justification can there be for a statement such as the Scottish Secretary made to-day, that between the first lot of herring that came in and were bought and the last lot that came in and were bought there was a difference of 26s. per cran? That is private enterprise. It is anarchy, chaos. There cannot be anything else under that system. The 20 years' Agreement gives an opportunity for developing the best relations with the Soviet Union, and the possibility of a very big and desirable market. The organisation of the market at home is absolutely essential if the fishermen are to get justice, and if the people of this country arc to get that valuable food.

Major McCallum: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) mentioned a port, a Highland port, and I think I know the one he has in mind. I feel, as he does, that something is wrong when one is unable to go down to the quay and buy herring as one used to do. I would like to come back to that point in a minute or two. I know that there are many Members who want to speak, but I would like to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland how very much I and my constituents welcome this Bill. We hope that it will have a quick passage through Parliament, and that the Herring Industry Board, the resuscitation of which was recommended by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in his very interesting and valuable Report, will start to function as soon as possible. I was very interested when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read out a telegram that he had received from Provost McNair, of Campbeltown. Provost McNair is a personal friend of mine, and a man who knows as much about herring fishing from the West Highland ports as any man living. He spoke of

that most important association of fishermen, the Clyde Fishermen's Association. I am sure that their good wishes will be endorsed all up and down the West coast of Scotland.
There are three points about the powers that are to be given to the resuscitated Board to which I want to refer. The most important, I think, is one to which the hon. Member for West Fife referred, the question of the marketing of herring. For two or three years past, I have carried on correspondence with the Ministry of Food in an endeavour to have amendments made in the system of marketing herring landed at West coast ports. I have had no success until the last letter I received, saying that the question of a revision of the allocation of quotas to buyers is to be considered after this season. I wonder why it was not possible to revise it before this season was upon us. It is to be hoped that the Board will take this in hand very speedily, and make the necessary recommendations to the Ministries concerned that these buying quotas shall be awarded fairly to the firms and individuals who buy the herring when they are landed at the ports. Another point to which I was glad to hear the Secretary of State refer—he has referred to it on previous occasions—is that of the powers given to the Board for the provision of freezing machinery. We in the West Highland ports have often thought that in one or two of them there might be installed some, not necessarily great refrigerating machinery, but medium-sized refrigerating machinery, which could cope with the surplus fish landed in time of glut. One hon. Member referred, I think, to the fact that, when a glut occurs in herring fishing, the fish are dumped back into the sea because they are generally in a soft condition, not in a condition to keep. If they were able to transfer this fish direct to cold storage, surely it would be the means of saving such fish from being wasted.
There is one point about which I would like to ask the Secretary of State, and on which, perhaps, he would make recommendations to the Board, and that is regarding the powers given under the Bill for providing equipment and improving equipment for the fishing fleets, and by equipment I take it that good harbours or improvements to harbours are included. I would ask that the Board should bear


in mind the necessity for improving, and, in one or two cases, even providing, good safe anchorage and harbourage for the herring fishing boats.
Finally, I want to ask my right hon. Friend if, before this Bill comes up for the Committee stage, consideration can be given to the point about the control to be taken by the Board over the trade in general. My constituents, and I believe fishermen all over the West coast, feet that the wholesalers dealing in the herring landed at the ports should be licensed in some form or other under the Board or by the Department, and should be controlled, but that control should not be too strict, if necessary at all, on the retailer and what is known as the hawker. I say that not because I wish to be prejudiced against one particular part of the industry, for after all, we all wish to encourage, as many hon. Members have said, the home omarket. We feel that no handicap or obstacle should be put in the way of retailers and hawkers, and, therefore, there should not be the necessity for such strict control over them, but, regarding wholesalers, we feel that there must be very strict control and that all wholesalers dealing in herring should have to take out a licence from the Department of Fisheries in England or the Scottish office in Scotland. As things are at present, wholesale firms can do what they like and cannot be put out of business by the Department, whereas the poor retailer or hawker can have his licence refused and be put out of business straight away. We feel that there should be justice for all parts of the industry, and therefore I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if that point could be borne in mind when the Bill has received its Second Reading.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: There are a number of points which I was going to make in regard to the sale and distribution of fish, but which were quite fully dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). If I stress the Scottish angle of the Bill to-day, perhaps I may be pardoned, in view of the very important part which Scotland and Scottish fisheries play in the national industry, and if I keep, for certain examples, to the most familiar background of my own constituency, perhaps I shall be pardoned for doing so. Shortly before the war, I re-

member asking a Question in the House regarding the number of men of the Royal Naval Reserve recruited from the Outer Hebrides and the Western Isles. The figure was something like 25 per cent. of the British recruitment to the Royal Naval Reserve. But we have had, along with that, another distinction. At the port of, Stornoway we reached an unemployment figure of over 63 per cent. at a certain period during the last pre-war years of the herring fishing industry. That distinction was less enviable, but the same men were affected by it as had the distinction of contributing 25 per cent. of the R.N.R. recruitment. It is very discouraging to see, on the one hand, this tremendously disproportionate call made on the sacrifice and patriotism of our people in war-time and on the other hand the neglect to which they are subjected in peace-time, and it is with the hope that, for the future, we will eliminate at least one of these distinctions—the unenviable one—that we welcome this Bill and hope to see it in operation in the very near future in a more effective way than has been the case with previous Acts for the expected benefit of the herring fishing industry.
We should have more control in Scotland in matters connected with the Scottish herring fishing industry. Yet we have the Herring Board in London, and Treasury control in London, and when applications come from Scotland, there is a feeling of remoteness about the attitude of London to Scottish fisheries that would not be there if these applications could be made to Edinburgh and dealt with there. The fisheries are in Scotland and the proportion of the Scottish population, compared with England's, engaged in the fishing industries is about seven to one. We have had in Scotland for about 6o years the Fishery Board, which England had not the distinction of possessing. [An HON. MEMBER: "It died."] We have been on rather more sympathetic terms with it. One has the feeling that a little more decentralisation of ultimate control in the herring industry would be better for the Scottish industry as a whole. There is a great difference between the English and the Scottish industries. In England it is a great deal more centralised than in Scotland, with control in the hands of a smaller number of large and growingly powerful companies, whereas, in Scotland,


there is not the same tendency to the same extent. You have practically a race apart of fishermen, not centralised in the larger towns, but scattered amongst the hamlets and islands of the Hebrides and nearly all round the North, East and West coasts. There are all these differences between the two industries, and I, therefore, hope that these special Scottish conditions will be taken into review.
There is another point which I would like to stress which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). Before the war preference was given to the Norwegians, and the Norwegian industry flourished; while gluts were experienced in Scotland and herrings were dumped and fishermen went idly about towns and the country districts looking for work. I hope the Board will see that our own fishermen get preferential treatment in future at all times. Regarding vessels, I am afraid we are going to be up against a difficult position at the end of this war, when we shall gradually but soon have to scrap practically every boat in use. At the beginning of this war, I think that more than go per cent. of the boats were nearly 30 years old. No new vessels were then being built in Scotland, but a few old ones have been bought secondhand from England. With regard to the grants, I agree with those hon. Members who expressed dissatisfaction with the one-third basis. Dealing with costs, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) mentioned a figure of over £7,000.

Mr. Loftus: It was £8,000 before the war, or £7,700 in 1937, and it would be at least double that to-day.

Mr. MacMillan: I was rather surprised at that, but I accept my hon. Friend's figures. I think the figure to-day would be rather round about £12,000, and one-third of that would be £4,000. It would be impossible to expect anybody such as an ex-Service man, to go back into the industry in debt to the extent of at least £8,000. I hope the Board will see its way to increasing the grant, or to making some special arrangements in respect of loans in addition to those in the Bill, in order to help men going back into the industry. If the Government want men to go back or come anew into the industry; they must realise that it must be made to pay them. They must have some

guarantee that their labour will be paid for without getting into debt or being forced to go out of the industry or emigrating ultimately abroad. Otherwise the herring industry will not revive and will not survive.
There must be better conditions in the industry, or it will not attract young men into it, and there must be some guarantee that there will not be unemployment whenever there is an overseas depression. In order to do that, we must have markets, and, in order to have markets, we must have overseas agreements on a longterm basis. This year-to-year business which we have had in the past, is no use whatever. We remember how, in the pre-war years, the German Government's fisheries department came in, fixed their prices at their own level, and forced the Scottish fishermen to dump their herring because of the uneconomic prices. The question of getting women into the industry is going to be a desperately difficult one because we shall not attract young women out of the Forces and good industrial work to jobs like herring-gutting and packing unless we make the conditions better than they are to-day, pay them better wages and give them continuous employment. It is not a job that anybody is too willing to do even under the best conditions and for the best wages, and we have to face up to it and find them a guaranteed wage and continued employment. We shall also have to make an effort, before the war ends, to recapture overseas markets, and notably the Russian market, which was lost for political reasons in the past. Russia could no longer regard us as a reliable supplier, when we were prepared, on political grounds, to break off relations for all sorts of political reasons. Norway's Government gave a full financial guarantee to her fishermen, who supplied Russia and they got the market and Russia did not default one pennyworth. That was a market which we lost for political trivialities——

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend or rake up any past disputes, but I really cannot let his statement pass. I was responsible at the time for the sale of these herring—I 'was Secretary for Overseas 'Trade for three-and-a-half years —and I must say that the hon. Member's


statement is quite devoid of any foundation.

Mr. MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman must accept his own share of responsibility for the fact that the country suffered—not only the herring industry, but all our own people—because of the Government's political attitude to Russia, and because of the folly of the deliberate breaking of diplomatic relations for political reasons. The Russians, if asked, would give the real reasons for it. There was a market, the greatest we had, along with the German and Polish market, and we lost is completely till finally, before this war, Russia was exporting fish, and we were actually importing fish from Russia—and even from Japan. Something in this relationship was radically wrong. I hope that we shall see the recovery of this part, at least, the greatest of our markets, though they have developed their own industry to-day to such an extent that perhaps it is a doubtful matter.
There is some hope of being able to expand the home market provided we can make the products more attractive to those who are prejudiced against it, and cheap and easily acceptable to those who want it, which it is not at present. We may offer guaranteed prices to the fishermen and still have a reasonable price for the consumer, and, at the same time, cut out a good deal of the handling by middle men in the industry who are contributing nothing whatever to the fishing industry. We must have little regard for those of the middle-men who are unnecessary and are merely parasites on the industry. There should be even now no real supply difficulty; so that anybody who wants to buy herring should find it available in every town and fish shop, but at present it is not available, even in ports where we catch the herring, including Stornoway. You could not buy good salt herring in Stornoway during the last four years. We have taken it up with the Ministry of Food year after year and they once sent us something from Iceland, partly for political reasons —that we can partly understand in wartime—which the Government called cured herring; but regarding which we knew better in the Isles.
I look forward to the Bill—in spite of the little asides in which the Minister

and I have engaged—doing a great deal of good in the industry. It is welcomed, unquestionably, by fishermen and by their representatives. The real thing we look forward to is to see its application in a reasonably short time; and to get its foundations laid now, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, so that immediately the whistle blows, we may be able to get on with the job.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It would be churlish if I did not acknowledge, on behalf of the Committee, the generous tributes which have been paid by the Minister and other speakers and which were entirely due not to the work of the Chairman but to the work of the Committee, many of whom had had practical experience of the industry themselves, such as our excellent skipper, Mr. James Watt, and others. All had had first-hand experience of one aspect or another of the trade. The remarkable thing was that we were able to produce a unanimous Report. I rather wish that I had had my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) with me as a member of that Committee. Some of those rather wilder statements in which he indulged towards the end of what when he. began was an excellent speech would not have been said. It would be a great pity if it went out to the world from here that any Government omitted to do their utmost to develop the Russian market. If hon. Members will read the Report to which they have paid so much tribute, they will see that the Russians have expanded their own herring fishing industry 99 times. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member thinks that the Russians have not in the last few years developed an enormous drive towards producing in their own country, he must be very blind to the admirable descriptions they have given to the whole world, and not least to the Members of this House. None of us blames the Russians for developing their fisheries. They have developed their fisheries, but an expansion of 99 times is a very considerable expansion. Expansion has taken place in German fishing also. It went up to 1,000,000 tons, and I wish, in the first place, to warn the industry and the country on the occasion of this Debate against too great a reliance on the complete recapture of those markets after the war. These countries


also desire to have a fishing industry. The great Soviet Union is developing its fishing industry at Murmansk and on the Caspian Sea and elsewhere, and it is useless for us to suppose that it is going to give that up on our account. Here we have certainly a very great industry which has still great new markets to find and develop not in other fishing countries, but in countries which do not possess sea coasts visited by great shoals of herring.
We did our best to stress in the Report —and it is well worth saying again—that the catch of herring by, our own country alone is equal to half the import of meat from South America, and the total North Sea catch is double that import. If you add the white fish catch the landings of fish in this country equal all the production of home beef, plus all the production of home mutton and lamb and all the production of home pork put together. The fishermen in these islands catch over 1,000,000 tons of fish, which is practically as great as the whole of the output of our enormous livestock industry, beef, mutton and pork added together. That is a colossal figure and it is landed by men who, the Secretary of State for Scotland said, are landing 25 tons a man in the case of the herring industry, and 35 tons a man in the case of the white fish industry. I press this on the attention of both Fisheries Ministers—at the outbreak of war four-fifths of the drifters were requisitioned. That is a very considerable figure. In my experience, at the outbreak of war, there are two things upon which Departments simply hurl themselves—one is schools and the other is drifters. They take them away from their legitimate user and devote them entirely to the needs of war. This is all right and no doubt necessary for the first, second and third year. When it comes to the fourth and fifth year of war, it might possibly be suggested in drifters as in schools that either Departments should hand some of these back or there should be some new construction, shipbuilding potential allotted towards producing this equipment, whereby men can produce food more quickly than in almost any other way open to us in this world. Send our fishing fleets out into the North Sea either for white fish or herring to bring them back and land them in this country. It

is the most efficient way of utilising certain categories of man-power open to us at the moment. Whether in munitions or anything else, there is no way in which you can produce 25 tons per man per annum of the same high quality product as you will by fishing among the shoals which are now present in the North Sea.
Our examination of the problem led us to the conclusion that there would be, in the years immediately after the war, a sellers' market which would lick up everything it could get, but later on we would have to be very careful to ensure that this boom was not followed by a slump. Therefore, our proposals for organisation were devoted to dealing not only with the immediate problem but with the long distance problem. The Minister rightly said that under this Bill they did not propose to set up the Board with full powers so long as the war-time power of the two Ministries and the Ministry of Food persisted. That is only right, but they take upon themselves a great responsibility for not merely operating the industry to the full just now, but laying the foundations for the future developments to which we have to look. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, speaking of the arrangement with the curing industry, said, and I quote from "The Times" of 74th June, that:
Any pickle-cured herring not required for the home market would be very useful in feeding liberated Europe.
I put it to him that that is scarcely the atmosphere of urgency which is required. If the accounts which have been given of the great shortage of food in liberated Europe are correct, these steps will be nothing like adequate. I ask him particularly to give attention to it and insist on attacking it with something of the same vigour and drive devoted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the expansion of home grown grain.
At the end of the war food will be a munition of peace of the greatest importance. So do not let us use any plant under its maximum potential. Do not let us use the quick-freezing plants for instance as places where fish can be stored in low temperature, a cool store. Do not waste the enormous potential power of freezing and passing on large quantities through a quick-freeze plant by frittering


it away as a sort of cellar or lodging house where fish may be kept. If there is not sufficient accommodation for the subsequent storage of that fish I would put the construction of such accommodation also into the category of war potential. At the end of the war, the man who can hand out food to starving Europe will have a political weapon in his hand of the very greatest importance. If such steps are not taken when the harvest is available, now, when the shoals are going past the great fishing ports of this country, we shall look in vain for them if a sudden collapse of the war takes place, in winter when the shoals have passed and there is no longer an opportunity to catch and bring forward the food for which Europe will cry, although it may cry in vain.
I was most interested in the practical parts of the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) because it showed a certain degree of approximation to the views of Members on this side. Or shall I say, Members on this side show a certain approximation to the views of the hon. Member for West Fife; or let us say when two practical men look at the same problem they very often come to the same solution of the problem although their reasons for the solution may be very different. I cannot, however, deplore too much the expression of opinion to which he gave vent about the fact that this country has not tried to develop its herring trade with Russia. I have already spoken about that in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for the Western Isles, so I will not repeat it except to say that the Minister then responsible for exporting all herring and I, who was responsible for the production of herring, both denied the charge, and if he wants any further denials I shall be happy to get them.

Mr. Gallacher: I was not referring to particular Ministers. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State he did everything possible. I was referring to the general political attitude of the Government and of the Conservative Party and of Conservative Members towards the Soviet Union and of the financiers to the conditions laid down for Credit to the Soviet Union.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It would be a long job to go over all these most interesting points just now, but these are points on which we differ and I only register my difference in a most emphatic way. I

want to come to the points on which we agree, because that it what is going to matter to the fishermen. The hon. Member for West Fife said that a grant of one third was not enough and that there should be provision for loans. But there is considerably extended provision for loans in the Bill. The provision for grant is provision for outright grant, but the provision for loans is also greatly enlarged. I would call the attention of the hon. Member for West Fife and the hon. Member for the Western Isles to a further point which, I think, is one of the most interesting points in the Bill—the provision for chartering boats to fishermen by the Board. You have there the combination of the collective credit of the nation, in the shape of the Board, and the private enterprise of the individual operating for profit. I think it is true, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles said, that £12,000 is an enormous sum for a small man to undertake, even if he gets one-third grant. He boggles at the thought of a loan even from the Herring Board of £8,000, because he realises the point which many of our financiers do not realise, that it is easier to get into debt than out of debt. But the Board in such case could charter a boat and he could try out his luck—I think a most interesting possible development—and see whether it would not be possible for him to make a living. It would thereby deal with the problem of finance for the little man in a way which would be quite impossible under present conditions.
There is one more point I would like to mention, the question of social security. We recommended in the Report that it should be possible for these levies, for which the Bill makes provision, to be used for such purposes if necessary, and if the scheme could be worked out properly, for the purpose of social security. We thought that possibly this was a case where insurance by industry might be operated. Our trade union representative, who signed that portion of the Report with the others, was most interested in the proposals for social security. I am not quite sure—and I would like an answer from whoever will reply later—as to whether it is possible under the Bill for the levies to be used, if the scheme is found necessary and practicable, for the purpose of dealing with insurance. As we all know, the individual fishermen are placed in a difficult position when they


fall upon evil days. The whole of the law about that is very complicated indeed. We also made a recommendation that the Law Officers might look into it with a view to clarifying it. I am glad to see one of the Law Officers sitting on the Front Bench. I would like to call his attention to that portion of the Report.
These are the points which I wish to make. It is hoped that the Board will be of great service to the industry. It is of great importance to note that every single person who came before us said, "Do not ask us to elect this Board; let it be chosen by responsible people, by the Ministers." We put a clause in specially so that, if and when the industry wished to elect its own Board, it can do so. We are all for self-government in industry but this industry—and it has been said with the greatest emphasis on several occasions —said, "Do not ask us at the moment to govern ourselves, because we shall make a mess of it." It is very seldom you find people far-sighted enough to say that the ordinary clichés of to-day do not apply to them. I think "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and a reverence for democracy is the best assurance that it will be properly worked in the long run. I hope very much that it will be possible eventually for these developments to take place, but meanwhile on the Board will fall this great responsibility. On the Ministers, until the Board comes into existence, rests this responsibility. Let us hope they will discharge this responsibility in the far-reaching and vigorous way the House obviously wishes, as has been shown in the Debate to-day.

Sir Murdoch MacDonald: Like every other speaker to-day may I also be allowed to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on a Bill which, in my view, is not only necessary now but will be of immense importance to an industry which, as has been pointed out by many Members, has suffered grievously in the inter-war period. In view of all that has been said I rise only to draw attention to one point. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) referred to refrigeration and said that under the powers contained in this Bill it would be possible for somebody to erect refrigerating stations on a semi-

commercial scale. The writers of the Report recommended that the Herring Fishery Boards when constituted should have the power to execute experiments on a semi-commercial scale, but I think the stage has passed for a semi-commercial scale, and it is quite evident that the Bill envisages commercial proceedings. Clause 4 refers to the making of loans to any society or organisation for the purposes of refrigeration. That, in my view, implies that these societies or organisations will be responsible for the erection of the refrigerating plant. The Secretary of State for Scotland introduced a very valuable Hydro-Electric Bill for Scotland quite recently, and it is now an Act, in which a new Board was instituted which was given power to collaborate—as far as its duties as laid down in the Act permitted—for the social and economic improvement of the Highlands of Scotland. If anyone looks at the map he will see that a very great number of the herring fisheries stations are in that area. It may well be that it will not, owing to their duties, be within the power of that particular Hydro-Electric Board to erect a refrigerating plant, although they might quite well collaborate in giving electricity at as cheap a rate as possible. Failing that new body being able to erect these stations, the question will arise, What society or organisation can erect them? It may well happen that business societies can be found in large towns like Aberdeen, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, and many other large stations round the coast, but on the West coast of Scotland in particular. Many harbours and piers, I understand—even where erected originally by the Government, through what was called the Congested Districts Board—now really belong to the county councils, or the Secretary of State for Scotland is endeavouring to get the county councils to assume responsibility. If they do, the further duty might be placed upon them at these stations to erect refrigerating plants and they could collaborate, in the words of the Hydro-Electric Power Act, with the new Board:
to get electricity at the very cheapest possible rate.
Although some of these smaller stations may not be of the magnitude of Aberdeen and the bigger stations, yet these would prove, owing to the arrangements I am suggesting, a commercial undertaking. Two new hydro-electric schemes have just been announced, one at Mallaig on


the West coast of Scotland in my own constituency, another at the Kyle of Lochalsh in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. M. MacDonald) which, for the moment, I happen to be looking after. In these two cases where the harbours belong to the railway companies, it might well be that the new Hydro-Electric Board should be asked, under the terms of the Act which lay down their duties, to collaborate with the county councils to erect refrigerating stations. I see a very great difficulty in getting any society or organisation to go to these places, though it may be quite conceivably possible in the larger places such as Aberdeen, Lowestoft, Yarmouth and the other great fishing ports round the country. I therefore suggest very strongly to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should consider how refrigerating stations could be erected at these places.

Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the Government have considered the herring industry of sufficient importance to introduce this Bill. The herring industry has been of major importance to my native isles for generations. Around the sea-girt Isles of Shetland herring fishing has been carried on for centuries. The Dutch were the first to discover this fertile fishing ground, and there was a time when boats from Iceland, Ireland, and the Isle of Man and from ports in Scotland vied with boats from Holland, Prussia, France and the Scandinavian countries for the harvest of the sea around the Shetland coast. Russia and Germany were the greater buyers of the herring. Then came the slump and, between the two wars, our fishermen certainly had a very lean time. It was no uncommon occurrence for the men, after a night's hard toil, to have to dump their catch back into the sea for lack of buyers. On one day I was there over 8,000 craps of herring were dumped into the sea. One hon. Member said that instead of wasting the fish in that way, it could have been converted into manure. That is perfectly true but it so happens that on the island opposite Lerwick where there is a manure factory it is a long way from the shore, and the men had to take their fish up there if they wanted to get rid of it, and they were only allowed something like 2S. 6d. a cran. They did not think it worth while, and therefore dumped their catch into the ocean.
It is good to know that in this Bill some provision is made to prevent this waste of human food. Refrigeration and processing, if operated on a sufficiently large scale, will certainly be of immense vaue. If people only knew the nutritional value of herrings as food, there would be a greater demand for them, and the Government should adopt some method whereby the people could be encouraged to eat more herring. The B.B.C. could be utilised in that way and there might be advertisements in the principal newspapers and by way of films. Boats are certainly badly needed, as well as harbour improvement, nets, and fuel. Fuel is a very costly item, and I think that some concession should be made in the price of fuel to the fishermen. Then again there was an experiment made by a relative of mine in spotting herring by means of an aeroplane. The Government might suggest that planes should go out occasionally in order to spot shoals of herring and thereby help the fishermen. But most important of all is the finding of new markets. Russia and Germany were the principal markets at one time, and I would like to know whether the Government have any idea as to new markets. We know—and I believe it is possible that it will continue for some time—that we shall be engaged in supplying herring, as a food, to distressed countries when the war is over. But as I have just said, I would like to know what the Government intend doing to try to obtain new markets.

Mr. Petherick: A number of Members who hail from North of the Tweed, even if they do not represent constituencies there, have spoken in this Debate but I should not like it to be thought that this day was to be devoted entirely to Highland games, so I would like to follow one or two hon. Members who sit for English constituencies in putting in a plea for English fishermen. One point was raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) which I would like to answer. Both declared that there was a sinister Tory influence at work before the war which prevented us from building up a really good trade in the export of herring to Russia. I know hon. Members on my side as well as they do, and I do not know one Conservative now in


the House who in any way in the years before the war tried to stop trade with Russia. We had very great difficulty with the Russians. They had a favourable trade balance, and that was always the difficulty of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture when he was Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. Before the war Russia had, year after year, a favourable trade balance and if she wished she could have bought any amount of the herring which was ready for export from Scotland and England. Russia, from her point of view, was anxious to build up her own fishing industry, and, therefore, a succession of Governments, Conservative, Labour and Coalition, had the most intense difficulty in getting the Russians to buy not only herring but various other products of this country. What will happen after the war I do not know, but, as I have said, so far as I am aware, no evidence whatever has ever been produced by anybody to show that a succession of Governments in this country did not do their utmost to get Russia to buy, as she could have done, more British goods in exchange for the Russian goods which were sent here.

Mr. MacMillan: I did not intend to make any aspersions against the Minister of Agriculture individually. No doubt he did his best as an individual and as a Minister.

Mr. Petherick: We went on trading with Russia through the years from the Armistice, with one short exception, until the outbreak of this war. As I have said, Russia always had a favourable trade balance. There was no sinister influence trying to stop trade with her. Although we did not like the Communist system, a succession of British Governments tried to push British goods, including herring, into Russia.
I want to join with other hon. Members who have spoken to-day in welcoming this Bill. I hope it will go a long way in the difficult years after the war to improve the herring fishing industry, not only in its internal aspects but also in connection with the very important export trade. I do not believe that we can cure the troubles of any given trade by Act of Parliament. I think everything will depend in this instance on how the Herring

Board will administer the very considerable powers and facilities that are being given to them by this Bill, a point to which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) adverted in his speech. If the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture are fathers of this Bill—if a Bill can have two fathers—then certainly my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove is its godfather. He and his Committee did very much in order that this Bill could be put on the Statute Book, as it shortly will be. Before I put in a plea for a further extension of this Measure, I would like to ask my right hon. Friend who is to reply to this Debate for a little further explanation on the question of loans. I am not quite clear—it may be that I am not very clever in finding out these things —as to the difference between loans under Clause 4 and loans under Clause 6. In Clause 4, as I understand it, out of the money provided by Parliament, £1,700,000 is to be put at the disposal of the Board for various purposes, and under Clause 6 the borrowing facilities of the Board are to be raised from £1,000,000 to £2,500,000. I am not clear as to the difference between these two forms of loans, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to explain the matter.
During recent years there is no doubt that the herring industry has been through a bad time. The various Measures which the Government took in the few years before the war did something to mitigate the position, but the state of the industry was by no means rosy when the war broke out. In some parts of the country it was, and is still, in a bad way. In Cornwall, where I live, when I was a small boy I used to look out of a window—I lived by the sea—and see 40 or 50 lights on fishing boats when they were out in September and October after herring and pilchards. Before the war if you saw four or five that was a large number; often there were none at all in the fine weather. It is not only herring that affects us in Cornwall. There is also the question of pilchards. The methods of catching both sorts of fish are similar, and I think it is a pity that pilchards should have been left out of the Bill and out of the scope of the Herring Board.
I do not see why there should not be a Herring and Pilchard Board. It is true


that the pilchard catch is very small in relation to the vast catch of herring but none the less it is extremely good fish. Unfortunately, it is caught in only one part of the country, the Duchy of Cornwall. It may be that as there are very few Members who represent that county in this House the pilchard fishery has been neglected and, of course, they are caught for only a short period of the year. But the mere fact that there is very little of that catch in relation to herring does not mean that no attention at all should be paid to it, and I would like the two Ministers responsible for this Bill to consider whether they cannot, even at this late hour, consider the possibility of accepting certain Amendments to give the Herring Board power to extend their operations not only to herring but to the pilchard industry.
I think very much could be done in the direction of canning more of our fish. Our canners have had great difficulties to contend with; they have had to build from nothing in face of fierce foreign competition and imports of all kinds of canned fish, which were allowed to arrive here in immense quantities in the years before the war, well presented and palatable to the housewife. Our canners had to fight against considerable odds in trying to make their way in the face of this corn-petition, as also did the catchers of the fresh fish which was sold in the ordinary way. A few years before the war a small cannery was set up in Cornwall. This factory had severe difficulties to undergo, and was constantly being undercut by an inferior food in the shape of the imported Californian pilchard, which had a comparatively easy time, because I understand that about three-quarters of that catch went into fish manure and the rest were virtually dumped, in tinned form, into this country and elsewhere. I hope that after the war the Government—and I hope there is general agreement about these matters—will not be too tender towards accepting into this country a vast import of foreign prepared and tinned foodstuffs, such as we had before the war. They are not nearly so good for the body as untinned foods, but if we are to eat tinned food I think we should concentrate on home tinned food and not on the imported products. I trust this Bill will do all that its protagonists hope it will do,

and, as an English Member, I wish it every success.

Mr. Boothby: I gather that my present speech is likely to be one of the shortest I have ever made in this House, but I have high hopes that before the end of the day I may be permitted to resume it after the break for Private Business. There is no need to waste words over a good Bill. In my opinion this is a very good Bill indeed for the herring fishing industry and the country as a whole. My only regret is that it was not introduced 15 years ago; it should have been, as has been pointed out. It shows the extraordinary deterioration that our public affairs underwent in the mid-war period when the herring fishing industry was allowed to drift on, in a state of desperate plight and depression, and nothing effective was done to bring assistance to it. Here we are in the fifth year of a world war and yet we find time to bring forward now the necessary measure to put the industry on a sound basis. It is one more illustration of the sort of paralysis in our public affairs during those mid-war years. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out, Clauses 1 and 2 give general effect to the recommendations of the Elliot Committee and I would like to pay my humble tribute to the work of that Committee which was, in all respects, admirable. I agree with my right hon. Friend——

It being the hour appointed for the consideration of Opposed Private Business, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords] [By Order]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Watkins: I wish to move to defer the Second Reading for six months on the ground that this House should decline to give to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company further powers until they demonstrate that they are using their existing powers properly. Hon. Members will


have received communications both from the Railway Clerks Association, on whose behalf I am speaking, and from the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company about the difference that has arisen between us, which difference I now want to put before the House. This is a difference which we have genuinely done our best for 14 months to get rectified. We have been conciliatory, courteous and accommodating. We have done everything we could to try to clear this matter up without bringing it to the House of Commons, but the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have adopted a very hard and unyielding attitude, an attitude, I might say, which is quite unlike the general conduct of negotiations by that company. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I bring this matter to the House because, for many years, I, myself, and friends of mine have been engaged in negotiations with the company and we have always got on very well together, which makes it all the more surprising that I should be driven to take this course. I am very sorry to have to wash this dirty railway linen in public, but the attitude of the railway companies has forced us to take this course.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman said "the attitude of the railway companies." That being so, it must be assumed that his complaint is not against one company, but against the railway companies as a whole. This is out of Order on a private railway Bill, because it affects all railway companies. That has been ruled before, and I am afraid I must stick to that Ruling quite firmly.

Mr. Watkins: I am sorry. It was a slip of the tongue. I am dealing only with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not have occasion to pull me up a second time.

Mr. Speaker: This Bill deals with a supply of water to Shropshire. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's complaint is somewhat wide of that.

Mr. Watkins: For many years it has been customary to raise matters on the Second Reading of railway Bills. I know that I have participated in such discussions myself, and it has always been held

to be in Order. I hope, therefore, that I may be allowed to make my point on this Bill. The difference between us and the company is one of recognition. Of the total staff of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company—the number is something between 150,000 and 200,000—there is one per cent., or less than one per cent., to whom the railway company is not prepared to give trade union recognition. That small section comprises the professional and technical people who are engaged in fairly large numbers, although they represent only a very small percentage of the total staff.
These men have been members of the R.C.A. for many years, some of them for 20 years or more. We always felt that we could not seek to represent them whilst they were with us in small proportions, but in recent years they have come along in larger numbers and to-day we represent a substantial majority of the "P and T people," as we call them, in the employment of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. We desire to be recognised as the appropriate trade union for dealing with service conditions and rates of pay, and other matters of that nature. When we sought to do that, we were astounded to find that the railway company put up impossible conditions, which no decent trade union, or any other body of men, could possibly accept. The Railway Clerks Association has been recognised by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company for 25 years. They know us to be the appropriate trade union for representing the administrative, clerical and supervisory officers and clerks in their employ. They have done business with us for 25 years, and no railwayman in an official position can level the slightest criticism at the way in which the R.C.A. has always conducted its negotiations.
Our work in the railway companies has proved of great advantage not only to our membership, but to the railway service and the community. The constitutional methods of the Association, the devotion of its members to the railway service and the community in general, and the high sense of civic responsibility among its members, which has been fostered by our organisation, are things to which I think the chief staff officer and general manager of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company will testify.
I remember that a few days after war was declared, in 1939, the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company called the presidents and the general secretaries of the various trade unions into conference. At that time I was the president of the R.C.A. They told us that the nation was facing a very great strain, that we were entering a life-and-death struggle, and that the railways would be called upon to make superhuman efforts in order to save this nation from being overwhelmed. They asked—although they realised that they need not have asked—for our assistance in the terrible struggle that lay ahead. We gave them an undertaking that we would stand by them and expected them to stand by us. We pledged our members to help them to the utmost of their capacity and, from that day to this, we have lived in that spirit with the railway managements, and, throughout the length and breadth of the land, I am quite certain that the high reputation of railwaymen is unchallenged at the present time.
That is the background, Mr. Speaker, which I want to submit to you and the House. Here are two parties who have lived together for 25 years in a decent, co-operative, loyal, mutually respectful way, yet when the trade union approaches the railway management and says: "Now that we have a majority of your professional and technical people in our membership we want to negotiate service conditions applicable to them," the chief staff officer of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and other officers, although they do not give us a blank negative, put up an impossible condition which we really cannot accept, a condition which should never have been imposed upon us. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the condition?"]

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to intervene again, but now we seem to be getting right away from this Bill and to be discussing some trade union grievance between the management and the men. That does not seem to me to be in Order on this Bill. We may state the grounds on which one objects to the Bill, but to go on and state the details of those grounds, seems to me to be wrong. If, on the other hand, a reasoned Amendment had been put down which would have brought that within Order, I should perhaps, if I had selected it, take another view. But

there is no reasoned Amendment before the House except the Motion for rejection. I feel strongly that this is not a matter that ought to be raised in detail on the Second Reading.

Mr. Watkins: My point is that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company are asking additional powers from the House. The House from time to time has given the company very great powers. I am submitting that, as they have misused some of the powers which have already been granted, they ought not to have the additional powers that they are now seeking, and I hope you will find that in Order.

Sir Alfred Belt: I believe it is the case that the dispute is not only between the Railway Clerks Association and the L.M.S. but also other companies and, consequently, the L.M.S. would not be in a position to give consent without the agreement of the other companies, who could not be brought in on this occasion.

Mr. Mathers: If the L.M.S. gave way, the other companies would not be in a position to maintain their objection to the case that we seek to establish and which we base on the L.M.S.

Mr. Speaker: It is obvious that the matter cannot be confined to one railway and I am afraid I must rule it out of Order.

Mr. Mathers: My hon. Friend is definitely confining his remarks to the L.M.S. Railway Company. He has referred to objections which have been raised by the staff chief of that company. On previous occasions when matters of this kind have been in dispute between a railway company and a trade union, the position of the trade union has been upheld that, before the railway company Os further powers, it must properly use the powers it has already obtained from the House.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact there are Rulings to the contrary by my predecessor. I have two of them here, in which they have ruled such matters definitely out of Order, if they affect more than one railway company.

Mr. Watkins: I am dealing with the L.M.S. Railway Company alone. It is impossible in this world to do anything


with one company, without its having repercussions elsewhere, but I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about the conduct of the L.M.S. Company.

Sir A. Beit: It would actually require the consent of the other companies and I understood you to say, Sir, that that could not be considered now.

Mr. Speaker: I am still in a difficulty over the matter. It seems to me that it would be wrong to discuss this particular grievance in detail. This is not the occasion to do it. One can state that there is a grievance, and withhold these powers for that reason, but to discuss the grievance without a reasoned Amendment before the House seems out of Order.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I am afraid, Sir, you are raising a very serious constitutional issue, and those who are associated with me certainly cannot accept a Ruling to the effect that no one may say anything about a railway company which applies for further powers, when it has improperly used the powers it already possesses. I have been associated with this kind of work for 30 years. The latest case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie). He raised a staff grievance. Objection was taken because there was nothing about staff questions in the Bill. Your predecessor, Sir, acknowledged that he had been mistaken in ruling against my hon. Friend and he allowed the discussion to take place and the precedent was re-established. In 1907, the question of railway superannuation funds was raised on the Caledonian Railway Bill. It was said that all the railway funds were in a very unhappy state and most of them were insolvent. They were not being actuarially valued. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who replied, agreed that the Government would institute a departmental committee to consider the position of all the funds. They did so and they issued a Report. We must retain this ancient privilege, and I beg of you, Sir, to allow my hon. Friend to continue his argument in respect of the L.M. & S. Railway Company.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is not the position as you, Sir, have said, that there is no reasoned Amendment

before the House? Is it not a fact that all the points that the hon. Member has just made, would be covered if there were a reasoned Amendment before the House? Is not that the difficulty in which hon. Members opposite find themselves?

Mr. A. Walkden: No. The precedents that I have quoted were not based on a reasoned Amendment but on the Notion "That the Bill be read this day six months." That is the time-honoured formula.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is forgetting that since 1907 the rule of relevance has been gradually applied a little more strictly. I remember the agitation about third-class sleepers when Bill after Bill was rejected, but afterwards that was ruled out of Order by the Chair. There have been several occasions subsequently when matters have been ruled out of Order, because they were not individual matters affecting one railway company, but affecting all companies. It seems to me quite wrong, when there is no reasoned Amendment, to introduce matters which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Watkins: I am extremely anxious to keep inside the Rules of Order. I cannot proceed unless I do. Will it be in Order to move,
That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of a Bill presented by a railway company which unjustifiably refuses to grant trade union recognition to the professional and technical sections of its employees"?

Mr. Speaker: I think myself that would be a better Amendment than the one that has been moved.

Mr. Watkins: May I withdraw my Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I am wrong. The Amendment has not been moved, as it has not been seconded, so the hon. Member can move his reasoned Amendment at the end of his speech, and it can be seconded.

Mr. Watkins: I am very much obliged. I was speaking about one per cent. of the L.M. & S. staff not being covered by trade union recognition. Trade unionism is now a part of our national economic and industrial set up. Industry cannot function without trade unionism. We desire the professional and technical people to be covered in the same way


that everyone else is. They consist of various groups of technicians, men, and some women, of skill and ability who have been employed by the L.M.S. in their laboratories and workshops for a number of years, draftsmen and surveyors, engineers, clerks of works and other grades of technical people. Most of them join the railway service young in life and remain in it until they are of pensionable age. They came to us in majority numbers and said: "We consider the Railway Clerks Association to be the right trade union for us. We want them to work for us and negotiate for us." We said, "What do you want?" They said they wanted an improvement in their rates of pay and service conditions. It was my privilege to preside at a number of conferences attended by representatives of these people. I was favourably impressed not only by their ability, but by their desire to serve the company and to give good and efficient service to that great undertaking.
Ultimately, as the result of discussions extending over many meetings, a programme was formulated. On 7th May, 1943, it was submitted to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. Up to now the company have given no decision with regard to it. They kept us waiting many months before they gave any kind of reply, and the matter has been hanging fire for all that time. Their reply is to this effect: "We cannot recognise and accept your statement that you have a majority of these men in your organisation. What you have to do is to prove to us that you have a majority of the chemists, of the draftsmen, and of each one of the other sections. Further than that, you have to have a majority in each department in our concern. Further than that, you have to have a majority, not only of those up to £350 a year, but of those over £350 a year. When you have satisfied all these conditions we will be prepared to discuss the programme you have submitted." We resent the implication that a trade union should be asked to submit this kind of mathematical proof on its bona fides. The National Union of Railwaymen have been negotiating for signalmen for 30 years, and they have not been asked to demonstrate that they have a majority of signalmen in their ranks. We have been negotiating for station-masters, and the company has never asked us to prove that

we have a majority of station-masters in our union, as, indeed, we have. We feel that when the general secretary of the union says to the chief staff officer of the L.M.S., "I say to you as an honourable man that we have a majority of these men in our union," the company ought to accept that and commence their negotiations with us.
I have been wondering what induces the company to take this very queer attitude, this 50-year-old attitude, the attitude of 1894, and not the attitude of 1944. I think probably that at the back of their minds they consider trade unionism as a satisfactory thing for manual and routine workers, but that it ought not to apply to the better paid people in their service. If that is the reason I hope they will not cling to it. Trade unionism is something that is right in principle. It is the right thing for a worker to belong to a trade union, irrespective of how much money he earns or what his position in the concern is. A large number of these men have voluntarily joined us and have come to ask us to undertake this work for them. It may be argued that our union has an all-in majority of lower paid men over the higher paid men. If that argument is in the company's minds I hope they will not cling to it because I know that our membership is fairly evenly distributed between the various grades. It is not only the lowly paid draftsman who wants us, but the highly paid chemist, the man with a university degree, and other technical grades come to us and say, "Will you act for us as a trade union?" The union is prepared to satisfy the Ministry of Labour that it has a majority of these people in its membership, but it is not prepared to analyse and split up its membership into sections and advise the company of the figures. The company could tell by that means how many of their highly paid men in any particular office were trade unionists. I cannot believe that that is in their minds, but that is what they can do.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that the case we bring forward is a legitimate one. Trade unionism is very dear on the railways. The railwaymen are proud of being railwaymen and they want to be part of the general life of the railway world by being inside trade unions. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) is


listening to what I have to say, and probably he will reply on behalf of the company. I have known him for a number of years, and I know that he has a great admiration and even affection for railway workers generally, including the professional and technical grades. I cannot think that he will recommend to the House that these conditions should be imposed against proper trade union recognition. To adopt a policy of this kind is a bit of atavism going back 50 years. I hope that I have stated the case honestly and accurately. I hope I have stated it moderately and that no exception can be taken to it on that score. The companies are very hard with us on this matter. They object to recognition being given to the union to deal with people getting over £350 a year. That is another matter that ought to be cleared up. I hope I have convinced the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport that the case I have submitted is a reasonable one. The companies usually act in a fair-minded, co-operative and accommodating way, and I beg them to use that frame of mind in this matter and to say that they are prepared to accept our union as the proper trade union for representing these men, and so end this dispute. If they did that no one would have more pleasure than I would in voting for the Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I ask what proportion of the professional and technical staffs receiving over £350 a year, would be in favour of the Amendment?

Mr. Watkins: I cannot give exact information on that point because we cannot analyse the figures, but my information is that we have a majority practically everywhere throughout our membership of not only the lowly paid men, but the higher paid men as well. To illustrate our fair mindedness, I would point out that we have not a majority of the architects and we have not put in an application for recognition on their behalf.
I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill until the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company con-

cedes trade union recognition to the professional and technical sections of its employees.

Mr. Burden: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would ask the House to believe that I do so with profound regret. I have spent more than 40 years in the railway service, first with the Midland Company and then with the London, Midland and Scottish Company. I was a member of the executive committee of the Railway Clerks Association from 1916 to 1941—with one brief interval—and, since 1919, when official recognition was accorded to the Railway Clerks Association for all its members, I can honestly say that the executive committee has done everything possible, by collective bargaining, to establish good will and mutual understanding between the railway companies and ourselves. As one who well remembers those sorry days before recognition was conceded, I did hope that 1919 had seen the end of that business; that the right of the Railway Clerks Association to speak for all its members would never again be challenged, and that, as recognition had been accorded, a new era had opened, not only for the staff, but in the interests of the L.M.S. and of the community as a whole.
I submit that it is regrettable that the L.M.S. company—I used somewhat proudly to say when I was in its service that it was the greatest corporation in the world, and I hope that in many ways that it still is—should now lead the attack on the right of the Railway Clerks Association to negotiate for its members, and should seek to break down that spirit of mutual good will and understanding which has prevailed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) has said, for over a quarter of a century between the Railway Clerks Association and the L.M.S. I think it is also unfortunate that the L.M.S. should now try to whittle down what has been established for more than 25 years, the right of the Railway Clerks Association to speak and to act for those members of the Association who are in what is known as the special class, that is, with salaries ranging over £350 per year. It is the definite, anti-trade union attitude of the L.M.S. in regard to certain sections of its staff, small sections I admit, now in membership of the R.C.A., that we are challenging to-day. This attitude of the


L.M.S. is, I am glad to say, relatively new. Speaking from experience, I can say that, while we have had our difficulties during the past 25 years, there has been, during that time, a desire on the part of the L.M.S. to find a solution of those difficulties agreeable to both sides to the controversy. To-day, I regret to say, an entirely new spirit animates those on the L.M.S. who are responsible for staff questions.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that trade union recognition is not an end in itself, but is a means to an end, and that that end is, of course, negotiation in regard to salaries and conditions of service. The professional and technical staff of the L.M.S. have been more than patient in regard to this matter. I well remember when the "P. and T. men," as the phrase is, then employed by a railway which is now part of the L.M.S., moved a resolution at the R.C.A. conference of 1921 to protest at their exclusion, but we have gone on patiently building up the membership. I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney that a majority of the members of the professional and technical staff of the L.M.S. have come, of their own free will, to the Railway Clerks Association. They have joined us voluntarily. There has been no coercion. The Railway Clerks Association has always steadily opposed the idea of compulsory trade unionism. Having come to us, the members of the professional and technical staff have a clear and definite right to ask the R.C.A. to discuss their conditions of service with the L.M.S.
The attitude of the L.M.S. strikes right at the root of collective bargaining. Is this an indication of the new spirit in industry? Is this attitude of the L.M.S. likely to produce that great co-operative effort between employers and employed, which, we are continually told, will be necessary if this old country is to get back again to the position in which we ought to be after the war? I submit that this reactionary, retrograde attitude on the part of the L.M.S. is not worthy of that great company. A statement has been issued to hon. Members which covers the case of the L.M.S. as well as the other companies. In order, I hope, to find a way out of this difficulty, I would ask permission to read a short extract from it. This statement says:

In the course of this letter, Mr. Gallie"—
who is the general secretary of the Railway Clerks Association—
writes: I am directed to inform you that it is felt that the request of the R.E.C. Staff Committee that we should furnish information in regard to the membership in the Association of each of the grades included in the application for a national agreement is unreasonable.
I do not want to comment upon methods of controversy, but I think the House will be surprised to hear that that is not a complete sentence. It leaves off, and it omits a very vital sentence or two. It omits that the letter from Mr. Gallie goes on to say:
and that in the light of the declaration I have made on behalf of the Association it should not be necessary.
I do not want to enlarge upon it, but one can see how a truncated extract of that kind in a document, can convey a very false impression. What was the declaration made by the general secretary? It was, as my hon. Friend has said, that the R.C.A. was prepared to demonstrate that it represented a majority of the staff concerned, and a majority of the staff concerned on the L.M.S. That declaration still stands. It is in the hope that this House will see that justice and fair play is done to a very small section of the L.M.S. staff that we speak to-day. We ask the House to give the protection and justice which have been long denied to this small section. We should not have troubled the House about it, if there had been a more reasonable attitude on the part of the L.M.S. management.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I do not know whether the House would permit me to take part in this discussion at this stage. I must declare my association with the railways, although I think it is fairly well-known after 22 years in the House. At the same time, it is necessary to do so. I want to give one assurance to the hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the Amendment, and also to hon. Members generally, that I do not think the record of the railways, as regards negotiation with trades unions, can be picked to pieces very easily. Our pride has been that, if all industries would adopt the negotiating machinery that has been established between the railway managements and the unions concerned, there


would be very few trade disputes. It is my firm personal belief that the railways could not operate at all, but for this excellent system, and for the way in which all the unions connected with the railways have proved themselves to be always in favour of the national interest, wherever possible, and to support the managements and the companies.
I find myself in this difficulty. The London Midland and Scotland Railway Company have introduced a Bill dealing with water and canals, and I think it is due to hon. Members to say a word about the Bill which is now before us. It seems to me that this curious procedure is like a tin can tied to railway development. You come forward to this House in order to improve conditions which are going to affect a large number of local authorities and are going definitely to assist the war effort, and of which every single Member on those benches is entirely in favour. I cannot believe there is one hon. Member sitting above the Gangway who is not in favour of the proposals in these two Bills. By the procedure of this House, however, they feel bound to use the opportunity not to talk about what we propose to introduce, but what they consider to be of more immediate importance. Before I proceed I should like to assume that every hon. Gentleman on those benches, recognising the urgency of these two Bills, and the purpose for which they are introduced, will give us their support for them. If they do not, and they are turned down, it would have very unfortunate results in regard to that part of the country where these reforms have now been agreed on with all the local authorities and the industries concerned, and complete agreement was reached after full discussion in another place.
If I may assume, therefore, that there is no great diversity of view about the Bills I would like to say one or two words about them. Hon. Members know that when they motor about the country there are few things more annoying than suddenly to come to a hump-backed bridge over a canal. You are thrown into the air like a cup and ball, you may or may not come down in your seat. It is due to the fact that the canals have to have hump-backed bridges for the barge traffic underneath. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite and the Minister of War Transport have a great affection for

several Clauses in this Bill. The purpose of these is to do away with these humpbacked bridges as soon as possible and enable motor and other traffic to cross these canals without difficulty. [Interruption.] As a matter of fact barges have not actually moved in that canal for a great many years, but what is important is the water, and the water in the canal is used for cooling purposes by various industries which draw on it, and by agriculture, and the purpose of this Bill is that the water in that canal shall continue to be available for industry and agriculture.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it possible for these canals to resume their former activities?

Sir R. Glyn: I assure the hon. Member that that particular section of the canal would not be much use for modern traffic. I should be quite glad to see another canal if it is considered that it would pay, though not if it is to be just for fun. If it were possible so to use that water I think hon. Members and everyone else would be satisfied. From a navigational point of view it has long gone out of use, and is no use at all. I think it would be rather impertinent of anyone introducing a Bill not to mention Clauses in it.

Mr. Bowles: In the statement which has been circulated, it is said that these canals had ceased for many years to carry any substantial traffic. I imagine, therefore, that some traffic does go.

Sir R. Glyn: That is the other Bill. There are two Bills. I sympathise with the hon. Member. It is rather puzzling. Speaking generally, the type of canal which is now 150 years old is not something that a progressive country wants to retain. We want something better than that, to improve it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent us helping to bring the canal up to date by subsequent action.

Mr. Mander.: To which part of the Shropshire Union Canal is the hon. Member referring? It is an area well-known to me. I have often walked on it, and certain sections are used a great deal at the present time. Which parts are not being used?

Sir R. Glyn: It would be difficult to answer that without a map and a pointer, which would be out of Order, but if the


hon. Member studies the Preamble he will see which sections are mentioned. May I assist him by lending him a copy of the Bill? The other matter to which I wish to draw attention is that the Bills which the company have brought in are urgent. I do not want to emphasise that, but if we have to wait for a further period it may have a very detrimental effect on the change-over of industry now engaged on war purposes to peace production. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me asked whether this was the new spirit which was to be shown in industry. One of the ways the House could show that it was not interested in industry would be to turn down these Bills, which are really important.
May I come to what apparently is to be the main object of this discussion to-day? As far as I am personally concerned I am grateful for the kind words which the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) used. I, with others, take great pride in being associated with the railway. I consider it to be a very great honour. When both the mover and seconder of this Amendment spoke I do not think they mentioned the fact that these negotiations have not been carried on with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway alone. They are carried on with the Staff Conference of the Railway Executive Committee. During the war, the Ministry of War Transport, as hon. Members know, have used this instrument, the Railway Executive Committee, and all negotiations are conducted through that medium, with which the boards are associated through their general managers.
In this case negotiations, I agree, have bean spread over a very long period; but the last thing that the L.M.S. would wish would be any misunderstanding in the House of Commons as to their attitude to the Railway Clerks Association. The Railway Clerks Association have rendered very great service on many occasions, and I know of no reason to believe that anything is being suggested or done which would be detrimental to the power or prestige of the Railway Clerks Association. In the negotiations the L.M.S. are only one of four companies concerned, apart from the London Passenger Transport Board. I was astonished to hear the mover of the Amendment speak against solidarity. I have always understood that

one of the great pillars of the trade union movement is solidarity. The hon. Member asked one of the companies to break off by itself, and to put itself in a sort of force majeure position, suggesting that other companies might follow suit. But if you are having negotiations, you must go along with the other parties to the negotiations. Suppose that the L.M.S. agreed to what was asked by the mover and seconder. Does that mean that they are prepared to operate one set of rules for one company, which would not be applicable to the other three? No, it must be done on a national basis. I am sure that hon. Members, on consideration, will feel that they would be losing a great deal more than they gained if they accepted that principle.
Quite a definite position has been reached. It has been agreed, not by the L.M.S. alone, but by the Staff Negotiating Committee, that the Railway Clerks Association are to be recognised, and they are recognised, in so far as all their members are concerned. A very proper rule has been made, which has worked to the advantage of the trade unions, setting a limit in regard to salary or wages, above which people cease to belong to the trade union or to the Railway Clerks Association. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] A limit has been fixed at£360 a year—or that is what it was. The Railway Clerks Association, beyond having their undoubted right of putting forward a case on behalf of any of their members who come within the category of professional or technical employees, want to be able to say, "We, and only we, shall be able to speak for all the rest of the professional and technical staffs." I understand that the Railway Staff Committee acknowledge the Railway Clerks Association in the case of individual members, but not as generally representing the professional or technical staff. I do not think that any responsible body would assume that one trade union represents the whole of the professional and technical staffs.
We only say that we recognise the right of the Railway Clerks Association fully to represent their own members, and in so far as they are able to represent the larger body—we do not know whether they really are members of the organisation—we are quite willing to have the matter decided, not by ourselves, but by the Minister of Labour. I do not think


that that is unfair. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen would have been satisfied with that—indeed, one of them, I think, said that he was prepared to abide by a decision of the Minister of Labour. But it must be emphasised that it is quite impossible for the company which is introducing these two Bills to give any undertaking whatever to-day, because the matter is not being dealt with by the L.M.S., but by the Staff Committee of the Railway Executive Committee.
The other point which was made by the seconder of this Amendment was that this was an indication of the attitude of the railways towards the new era. I do not think that it can be interpreted in that way. We want to encourage people, in every way, to get on in the railway industry. There are large numbers of men who have a right to have their interests protected by trade union action. That, more or less, applies to all those in the lower salaried grades. I do not believe that any hon. Member would be willing to have any restriction imposed on individuals to prevent them advancing to the very top of the tree and gaining whatever salaries their professional qualifications entitled them to. I do not believe that there is any Member who would say that was not a legitimate ambition. It is absolutely certain that in the post-war period scientific, technical, and professional men will be required, in increasing numbers, to keep railway transport well abreast of the times, and to see that it is associated with other forms of transport, and I do not think that anything should be done which can be interpreted in any way as a restriction on individual enterprise and on the reward for application to these particular problems. Therefore, I think we can say that there is nothing at all in dispute about the right of the Railway Clerks Association fully to represent, through trade union methods, every one of their members, whether he is a stationmaster or a draftsman, or whether he belongs to any of the professional and technical grades.
What is being considered is in what way, and by what method, the other members of the technical and professional grades, who are not members of the Railway Clerks Association, are to be represented. Are we entitled to assume that they all wish to be represented only by

the Railway Clerks Association? That is surely a matter which is open to consideration. I would like to give an assurance—and I hope that my hon. Friends will accept it—that we feel that everything possible should be done to strengthen the trade union position in its negotiating machinery, but we do not feel entitled to assume, without further inquiry, that all those members of the professional and technical grades will have their views represented by the Railway Clerks Association.

Sir A. Beit: Do I understand that the question of whether a majority of these professional and technical grades are represented by the Railway Clerks Association is no longer a point at issue?

Sir R. Glyn: It is a point for further investigation. I see the point of these hon. Gentlemen fully in one regard. They think that there is a danger that the management may become acquainted with how many of the members of these grades are associated with the union, and how many are not, and that there might be prejudice. Nobody wants any prejudice about it, and I feel that the fairest thing is to submit it to outside arbitration. If it is submitted to the Minister of Labour, nobody, I feel, will have any cause to complain, or to believe that the railway managements are opposed to trade unionism. I submit that these two Bills should have their Second Reading to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be against that, but I hope that the rest of the House will be prepared to give these two Bills a Second Reading, and to see them go to Committee.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I am sorry to have to take part in this discussion, but it is due to the wrong-mindedness of certain officials of the L.M.S. I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) making an apology for them, and I think that, on the whole, he has not been acquainted with all the facts on this rather complicated matter, nor is the House acquainted with the Bills. Hon. Members of the House never see these Private Bills. They are printed by the promoters, who send letters to us about them but they do not send us a copy to show what they are about.

Mr. Boothby: As we are not discussing the Bills, it does not very much matter whether we read them or not.

Mr. Walkden: As the hon. Member for Abingdon said something about the Bills, I also must say a few words about them in reply to what he has suggested. Quite briefly, there is a Canal Bill, which seeks to enable the company to make more money by selling water. I am sure the Ministry of Health will agree that they will charge for the water. The other Bill will enable them to close up the canals, because, I suppose, they are uneconomic, and they will be relieved of the responsibility of maintaining them. There is a statutory obligation on them, made when they took this canal over, that they should maintain it and keep it in a navigable condition. They want to be relieved of that responsibility and it will be an appreciable assistance to them, from the financial point of view, and that is why these Bills are really here. No railway company comes here for the good of anybody's health. They come here to get value for themselves, and so let us strip all this cant away and come down to realities.
My hon. Friend paid some tribute to the work of the trade unions in the railway world. I think hon. Members must have noticed that there have been no stoppages in the railway world all through this war. No one has endured greater strain under war conditions than the railway workers, and we ask the House to be considerate with us and consider our point of view in the matter of fair play as much as that of the railway companies. I would remind my hon. Friend that we have even helped him financially. There was the extraordinary case of the Railway Clerks Association, when the Company's superannuation fund, set up under statutory authority, was practically insolvent and they were feeling the burden of guaranteeing the benefits. It was a very generous scheme and the staff were only required to pay 2½ per cent. contributions. The Company had to make up the rest, and we agreed with them that the staff should pay more. The Association's men went about the country persuading the members of the fund and inducing them, by the necessary four-fifths majority, to pay 4 per cent. That brought the Company at least ££100,000 per annum in additional contributions from the staff.
I think we are on pretty tenable ground. But when we met the Company's staff officers, the first thing that staggered us, when we had a discussion to try to negotiate a settlement, was that the companies would not do any business above a figure of £350 per year. There is no stipulation that a man having more than £350 might not be in a union; he can be in if he gets £1,000 a year. But the company said no further agreements would be made for rates of pay exceeding …350 a year. There is no such stipulation in the Burnham Committee procedure for the National Union of Teachers. The latter stands for and represents great headmasters and assistant masters, and it pleads for them, and they are not asked to prove that they are all members of the N.U.T. Some are too mean to pay the subscription, but not too mean to take the benefits. In local government, all sorts of technicians and employees, clerks and others come under the discussions of the National Association of Local Government Officers, and there is no restriction, or questioning or embargo, and no pernickety "Are you this?" or "Are you that?" Nothing of the sort. They negotiate direct with that union, make settlements and carry on local government staff matters satisfactorily.
In the Civil Service, there is a salary line drawn, hut it is not £350; it is £850. If the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) were here, he would tell us that he could argue for and represent a man on the £2,000 scale; he could argue for what he considered right or wrong up to £850. I have been on these tribunals which deal with these cases, with representatives of capital on the other side of the chair. We heard arguments about these men, but none of these trivial questions are raised. No one would think of raising them, and they would be ruled out if they were raised. The railway service ought not to be so far below the Civil Service, but I am afraid those who are running the railway service now are not taking much notice of the world they live in. This is a great time in which we are living. This is a great Parliament, and it is undertaking great tasks. This Parliament has raised the general line for all workmen in the matter of social insurance, and, where industrial legislation touches the worker, it touches him up to £420 a year, instead of £250. My hon.
Friend wants to keep these technicians—our middle class—below the line of the workmen under them. These men make the plans and the drawings for the manual workers who carry out the jobs. They are highly qualified and highly educated men, and most of them have spent hours of their lives getting qualified in railway technical colleges at Crewe and Derby, as my hon. Friend knows, yet he wants to keep them below the standard of the men whom they supervise. It is quite intolerable, and it is quite evident that my hon. Friend has not been told all the truth. [Interruption.] No, I know what has been going on. That is the position and that is the £350 stipulation they made.
Our proposition for these men is perfectly simple. There is a range of salary scale suggested for them, and to suggest that they cannot put these men on the scales is simply preposterous. We set out our proposals, but there is no salary scale proposed which goes beyond £650. That is the highest figure mentioned, and it is perfectly moderate for such people, but, when they ask us to represent them, the companies say, "You have got to segregate them."
They want us to segregate our membership in order to show exactly what membership we have; segregation is a most objectionable principle. We believe in solidarity. We are the only people qualified to speak for them. They have not gone to a dozen outside organisations. They want us to act for them because they know that we can act in harmony with the railway management. We know one another and they want us to represent them. There is another little union, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen. They have about 45 members in the railway service, but they have paid the R.C.A. a capitation fee and have asked us to represent their members as well as our own. As far as the foremen are concerned, a settlement was made for workshop foremen, and none of these questions was raised at all.
This House, years ago, dealt with the case in which the old Great Eastern Railway Company, which was then headed by Lord Claud Hamilton of blessed memory, tried to show that the booking clerks should come in one lot,

the goods clerks in another lot and engineers' clerks in another lot, all of whom had to come separately and see his lordship, cap in hand. We asked that they should come unitedly. We held up a Great Eastern Bill and this House approved the principle of acting unitedly. That was long ago and we cannot forget these things. There is a broad general code to rightness in representing people. In one of the formulas of the Ministry of Labour it says:
There should be organisations of employers and trade unions representing, respectively, a substantial proportion of the employers and workers engaged in trade or industry.
They do not challenge the details in any cases that go there. These details are never rendered.

Sir P. Hannon: Can the hon. Member give the House an idea of what "a substantial proportion" is?

Mr. Walkden: I will give it in a few moments if the hon. Member does not mind, but to give details to an employer would be rather betraying the general practice of trade unions in the country. They are not expected to give details, and I would be letting them down if I gave them to the railway company. I have our own membership figures here in my hand and I wish that I were free to quote them. They give the number of persons in the occupation, and we have got out the number who are in our ranks, and there is a very substantial majority. We are told that the latest total figure for 1944, is 4,100, and that according to the Ministry of Transport returns for 1938, it was only 3,600. We will let the 4,10o stand, and acknowledge that there are a number above our reach who are receiving more than £650 a year. We do not expect to represent engineers who have a direct responsibility to the Board of Directors. If you take off about 500 —there are five concerns involved—it leaves 3,600.
We have in our membership 2,164 out of 3,600, a majority on the total of 1,436. We have nearly two-thirds of them in our ranks. We are all anxious to be accommodating and helpful but we cannot give the analysis asked for by the railway companies. A man may have joined us, say, seven years ago as a research worker; he studied and became a chemist; and another man joined as a


draughtsman and five years afterwards became an engineer and we do not know of all this. They joined at one salary, and we cannot say the individual rates of pay of these men to-day. We ought not to be expected to do that. We represent these people as a class. The hon. Member for Abingdon talked about the non-member. I will not use all the terms applied to non-members; there is one, "blacklegs." They always want the benefits that the trade unions can get, and there will be no objection from any non-member to any settlement that we get on a basis of this programme. They will not say that they do not like the Railway Clerks Association doing this and that they will not take the money, not on your life. I hope that the House will be satisfied that we are playing on plain ground and playing a straight game.

Mr. Bowles: My hon. Friend said the railway companies would make money by selling the water and save money by giving up canal bridges. Will all the money that they make in any way go in an increase of salaries?

Mr. Walkden: I suppose it will go towards helping the general coffers. We do not want to analyse what they do with it so long as they pay our rates of pay.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not a fact that all the surplus of the railway companies goes to the Government in any case?

Mr. Walkden: I am looking towards the day after to-morrow.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Some time ago my hon. Friend referred to a reduction of 1½ per cent. in superannuation. Do I understand that the P and T men agreed to 4 per cent., and that you induced them to do so?

Mr. Walkden: Yes, it is true that the P and T men consulted with us and agreed with the R.C.A. in doing the right thing for the superannuation fund. We did it because the men were going to get better benefits, and for a more joyful reason, that the men live longer. We want the fund to keep on because it helps to make people cheerful about their old age. The railway service is really a public service. It is under private ownership, but the companies are statutory companies. No one would deny that. It is a public service and everyone recognises

that they should step into line with the Government's public policy on labour questions. That public policy was recently declared with striking emphasis. We do not merely wish to maintain good relationships for the sake of helping on the progress of the war but in order to make a better future for our own people and be of greater advantage to the railway service. If we get this little blot out of the way, we shall have a much better outlook for the future. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said that
in industry there are certain standards that are accepted and that a new, wider and better code will have to be written for the conduct of industry generally in this country.
Will the hon. Member for Abingdon help us to write a better code? Will he help us to get this trouble out of the way? If he will, we can soon reach agreement. Be says that he is only one among many. But they are the greatest company of the lot, and it is true that, "if father says turn, they all turn." The London Midland and Scottish is the leading company and we have done right in selecting the L.M.S. in order to bring our grievances to the House and I hope that we shall be supported in our case.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the certificate of the Minister of Labour or some outside arbiter on this matter?

Mr. A. Walkden: Mr. A. Walkden rose——

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order when this House is seriously discussing a Herring Bill, that the railway companies should throw a couple of stinking fish on to the platform? Can steps be taken to have them cleared off, so that we can get on with the Herring Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): It was perfectly in Order to put down these two Bills for discussion to-day.

Mr. Mathers: May I make an effort to shorten this discussion and achieve a position of clarity by putting this point to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn)? What does he suggest to us? He asked if we were prepared to accept the certificate of the Minister of Labour. I return that question to him and ask: Is he, and are those for whom he is speaking, prepared to accept a certificate from the Minister of


Labour that we represent—I am speaking for the Railway Clerks Association—the majority of those for whom this claim is being made to-day? Further, if the Minister of Labour is prepared to give such a certificate that our representations in that respect are accepted, are genuine, will those for whom he is speaking accept that and, on the basis of that, negotiate in the way that we are asking in these representations?

Sir R. Glyn: With the permission of the House may I say this, that in a letter dated 3rd July—which I am quite sure is in the possession of the hon. Gentleman—not the L.M.S. but the Staff Committee of the Railway Executive Committee said:
With reference to the discussions between representatives of your Association and the Railway Staff Conference to-day, I hereby confirm the suggestion made on behalf of the railways that as the alternative to supplying the numbers of staff you claim to represent in each of the sections of Professional and Technical staff enumerated in your claim, you should supply to the Ministry of Labour the numbers in each of the following three groups…:
And then it goes into some detail. The point I have to accept on behalf of the cannot bind other companies —is that the Staff Conference will accept outside arbitration if it is suggested. I cannot do more than that, and I am sure hon. Members will understand the reason. If the Minister of Labour will accept that decision and go into all these germane matters, I think that would put the matter on a proper footing, satisfactory both to the Railway Clerks Association and to the railway companies.

Mr. Mathers: Following that point, does the hon. Member realise that the details he dismissed so lightly involve i6 separate categories of the individual position of members of these grades? That is the point which we said we could not accept and should not be expected to accept, that it is not in keeping with ordinary trade union practice. We suggest that if we get a certificate from the Ministry of Labour that we represent, in the broad sense, a majority of the men for whom we are pleading to-day, then the companies should accept that and negotiate on that basis.

Mr. Mander: I rise to make a brief intervention because

I do not want it to be thought that support for the point of view that we have had from hon. Members above the Gangway is limited to Members of one party. I am just as much in sympathy with the point of view they are putting forward as anyone who has spoken. I am very glad that advantage has been taken of the opportunity presented today by this Bill to raise this point. It is a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary stratagem. Many of us have taken the opportunity in the past of objecting to the First or Second Reading of Railway Bills. I remember objecting to the First Reading of a Railway Bill once, to the great annoyance of the Great Western Railway but, as a result, I was able to prevent a children's playing pool in my constituency at Wolverhampton being taken over by the Great Western Railway. So long as the railway companies are under private management—I think they should be nationalised as public utility companies and many hon. Members on all sides of the House think that —they must come to the House and be prepared to hear the kind of argument that has been put forward to-day.
I think we are all in favour, in principle, of collective bargaining. It is impossible for anyone to get up and oppose it, but we do know that in practice all employers tend, as their employees rise in the scale, to look with increasing reluctance on the clerical staffs, and others higher up, being dealt with through trade union organisations. It is a well known fact, and it is not confined to the railway companies. The railway companies have had a very good record in the last few years, since my hon. Friend was associated with them, but we know quite well that 40 or 50 years ago their record as regards collective bargaining was not at all good—they were extremely reluctant to accept it and had to be pushed.
As to the precise point we have heard about to-day, I do not quite understand where these negotiations are leading. It seems to me there is the question, shall the Railway Clerks Association be represented? Shall, associated with them, be some other small trade union or trade unions, or shall non-unionists be represented? It seems to me a quite impossible position. Is it suggested there should be one rate of pay for trade unionists and a lower one, presumably, for non-union-


ists? You would not have many non-unionists left for long. I quite appreciate that these Bills are required, that we ought to pass them, and that this particular point is not dealt with in the Bills themselves, but this is our opportunity, and I do appeal to my hon. Friend to represent to his fellow-directors on the railway companies, the clear feeling of this House. No one has spoken on the other side at all. We do look to the railway companies to deal with this situation in such a way as will give proper recognition to the Railway Clerks Association. It seems perfectly clear from the figures quoted to us that they are entitled to it. They are only working on lines that are adopted with other great aggregations of capital. Other people do not ask for these detailed categories that we hear about; that is a new point. It is something quite new in industry, and I hope that my hon. Friend will succeed in persuading his colleagues that they ought to adopt the view of the House of Commons, that the Railway Clerks Association should be recognised.

Sir Alfred Beit: As one of the St. Pancras Members I have received a fair amount of correspondence on this subject, and what I found of interest in the Debate to-day was that it was not until an hour and a quarter had passed, that we received an estimate—admittedly only a very approximate estimate—of the numbers of men involved, together with the numbers of those whom the Railway Clerks Association profess to represent. I must say that the figures given by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) were not very clear to me, nor was his arithmetic very clear either. As I understood it, he said that there were some 3,600 men throughout the whole of the railway companies in these "P. and T." grades, of whom the Railway Clerks Association represented 2,100. That seemed to me a fairly clear majority, and I imagine that the object of the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was that it should be definitely established without any shadow of doubt —because the hon. Member for South Bristol admitted that there was some doubt as to how people are reckoned—that there was a clear majority of these men who could claim to be represented by the Railway Clerks Association.
Therefore, even although it may go against previously established trade union practice it seems rather much for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) to object to the classification of such a small number of men as this. To state how many of these 16 different trades are represented by the R.C.A., when the total is 3,600, would, I imagine, be a very easy task. It is not asked that that information should be given to the railway clerks or to the Executive Committee; it is only suggested that it should be given to the Ministry of Labour, which could produce a certificate stating briefly what was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). As the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has said, this Debate has provided an opportunity for a Parliamentary strategem. That is common enough, but I think it is regrettable that we should have to discuss matters completely foreign to the Bills that are before the House. I should have thought that the offer that was made—and the real issue is a very small one which could be rightly decided by the Ministry of Labour—is one that could be accepted.

Mr. A. Bevan: The issue before the House is not a small one, but an exceedingly important one. My hon. Friend the mover of the Amendment, and those supporting him, have succeeded to some extent because in their desire to convince the House they have understated the significance of the issue which is before us. It is the first time I have ever heard that a trade union would have to claim to represent the majority before it could claim recognition. No trade union of Great Britain would ever have established itself if, first of all, it had had to convince the majority that it could start operations and get recognition from employers. My hon. Friends have enable their opponents to seize upon their moderation to make a case against them. It would be sufficient for the Railway Clerks Association to say that they represent two or more. The House is under an honourable obligation to insist that the railway companies should recognise the Railway Clerks Association in this matter, because it was only a short time ago that the House passed legislation the effect of which was to send persons to five years' penal servitude if they could not obtain trade union auspices under which to present their claim.
Is it to be suggested that workpeople are to be put under disabilities which employers do not labour under? These men have acted as loyal citizens throughout the war. If they had been spurred or incited into stoppages in order to secure recognition it would have been only what work-people have always had to do in order to obtain recognition. But these men have loyally worked difficult hours, under arduous conditions, and at the moment they are in the position of having to fight for the privileges, or rights, that every civilised man regards as the normal concomitant of human life. I think the attitude taken up by the L.M.S. Railway is entirely untenable; I think the House is with me in that matter. It is not fair, because if these men wish to have their grievances attended to how can they act? I ask the Members of the House who are in the legal profession: What can these men do? If the employer says he will not recognise them where can they go? They cannot go to an arbitration tribunal, because the question of recognition is not regarded as a dispute. I had the same sort of situation among the colliery clerks of my own constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). There was a large number of clerks to whom the colliery company refused to accord recognition. The clerks tried for 18 months, but the companies refused. They tried over and over again to go to the National Arbitration Tribunal. The law says that if men strike in war-time they are committing an offence, yet they cannot obtain the service of a Tribunal set up by the nation for the purpose of dealing with a dispute, because recognition is not a dispute. So men are put under a legal impossibility. It was only after these men had handed in their notices to stop work, and some of us saw the Ministry of Labour about it and prevailed upon them to retire from their impossible position, that we were able to avoid a stoppage in the industry and obtain recognition for these clerks. These railwaymen are in precisely the same position. How dare the House of Commons——

Sir P. Hannon: The House of Commons can dare anything.

Mr. Bevan: I have never known the hon. Member have any limit at all to his improprieties. How dare men, in reason,

impose upon workpeople such onerous disabilities as to say that if they strike for recognition they will be imprisoned, and that if they try to importune their employers in order to obtain redress of their grievances when they are not in a union they will be given five years' penal servitude? The employer can sit back and shelter himself behind all the disabilities to which his workpeople are being subjected. No Member could defend this in his constituency. The offer which the hon. Member far Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has made to-day is no. offer at all. My hon. Friends have said that if they can establish to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Labour that they represent the majority of the people engaged in these crafts they will accept the decision of the Minister as to whether or not recognition should be accorded.
What was the answer the hon. Member for Abingdon made to that reasonable and over-moderate offer? We on this side think recognition should be accorded despite the fact that there is not a majority. The answer of the hon. Member is that the Association should split their 2,100 members into 16 categories. But even when they have done, that they do not get recognition. The argument would be shifted as to whether they represented the majority in each category. They would say: "We will accord you recognition in those particular categories and offices and departments where it can be shown that you have a majority." That would be the next stage. That is the logic of it all. If that is not the logic of it, why are the itemised figures required?
The only merit in having them split into these categories is that the railway companies want to fall back upon a second line of defence. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition that these men should be represented in the way they claim to be represented merely on account of the fact that the 2,100 represent a global majority of the total members involved. I am satisfied that the House of Commons would be doing less than justice unless it supported my hon. Friends in their Amendment.

Mr. Denman: On a point of Order. Would you, Sir, accept a Motion to adjourn the Debate if I moved it in a few minutes' time? It would be extremely unfortunate if we went to a


Division on this Motion, whereas if we adjourned the Debate it would give a possibility of agreement, which seems very near to being reached, and we could proceed with the Bill after agreement had been achieved.

Mr. Bevan: Will the Government move the Adjournment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think I should be disposed to accept such a Motion at the moment. There appear to be only some two or three speakers. Perhaps in a little time I shall be able to consider the proposal.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Should not we rather stultify the House if we took a Division on this Amendment? I have been in the House for 25 years but have never been in it under conditions such as we have to-day, when a Ruling has been given that we can discuss for hours something that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be reflecting on a Ruling of Mr. Speaker, which it is not, of course, in Order to do.

Sir Patrick Hannan: I would say in the first place that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) is not new. I have known the same strategy employed when my party was in opposition. Secondly, when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) talks of impropriety in the House, I would suggest that he is a master of impropriety. I believe the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) has made a case which the House must consider with sympathy, and I am bound to observe that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has not replied to the case made, as adequately and fully as I should have expected. I do not think we can adequately appreciate the services rendered to the country during the war by the "P. and T." classes engaged in railway operations. They have done a marvellous work. There is nothing more gratifying to me than the enthusiasm, loyalty and personal self-sacrifice of hundreds and hundreds of these railwaymen night and day, enabling the country to carry on its transport operations in circumstances of great difficulty. I believe the hon. Member for

South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) has made a first-class case in presenting the claim of the "P. and T." classes in railway operations to adequate appreciation on the part of particular railways of their proper place as part of the organised labour of the nation. If this were to go to a Division, I, as one who wants to express appreciation of what the "P. and T." classes in the railways have done in war service alone, should vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Clement Davies: I intervene to make an appeal to the railway companies, because I am affected by the Bill itself. I represent the territory over which these big battalions are fighting. I shall suffer to some extent if the Bill, with its Clauses protecting the interests of the Montgomery County Council, is lost. I do not know what further costs may be placed upon us if the Bill does not get a Second Reading, but I think those who are opposing it have taken not only the proper but the only opportunity they could, in order to bring forward their grievances, and it is an absolutely legitimate grievance. I make this appeal inasmuch as we are interested in the Bill itself, quite apart from my personal views, which accord entirely with those of the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden). I appeal to the railway companies to meet the case put forward by the railway clerks here and now. I suggest that two leading counsel should leave the Chamber, as they sometimes leave the court, for a few minutes and see whether they cannot come to an agreement and obviate the necessity for a Division.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have a very modest, undramatic task to perform. If any hon. Member thought it right to move the Adjournment of the Debate, I should not resist it, but of course this is not a Government Bill, and it is not for me to make the proposal. My hon. Friends who have moved and supported the Amendment will not expect me to deal with the substance of their most interesting speeches. Under the control of the railways, as it has been worked during the war, staff questions have been left to the ordinary peace-time machinery—the managements and the trade unions—to deal with. Whether it has been a question of some


minor grievance of an individual, or a larger question of general principle, like that which we have had before us to-day, the Ministry have not sought to set the established machinery aside, or to settle it themselves. They have left it to the unions and companies to reach agreement themselves. That has been in accord with the wishes of all concerned, and certainly it has worked well during the war, as the Mover of the Amendment said it had worked well during peace-time. In any case, this difference between the Railway Clerks' Association and the L.M.S. has raised issues of general trade union policy and general industrial relations with which it would hardly be for me to deal. I must, therefore, confine myself to saying that my Noble Friend hopes that this difference will be settled by agreement through the usual machinery and that he would be much gratified if it were. If it is not so settled, of course there is always, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has said, the possibility of invoking the help of the Minister of Labour, within whose competence such matters lie. Similar issues have been so settled in the past. My Noble Friend hopes that this difference may be settled by agreement without the need of recourse to the Minister of Labour and, if the Debate has helped to bring about agreement, my Noble Friend will be much gratified by that result.
May I say one word about the Bills. These are private Bills. My Noble Friend is not responsible for their promotion but my task is to explain the Ministry's attitude towards them. As Minister of Transport he has what I may call a P and I "interest in their passage. Apart from the money considerations for the railways which are involved, it is a fact that there are in both Bills points of public interest and policy involved. The first Bill deals primarily with the sale of water to industrial users on the Shropshire Union Canal. It is desirable that the L.M.S. should be empowered to continue to sell water to these users in the next 10 years, and this Bill is needed because their right to do so has been challenged. The industrial users who buy the water are now engaged on national production of high priority. It is also eminently desirable in the national

interest that they should continue in productive enterprise after the war. Therefore, it would be against the public interest if they were obliged to close down by having their water cut off. My Noble Friend hopes that in Committee an Amendment will be made to Clause 4 of the Bill. We have already put in a report to Parliament on the point. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible to take 12,500,000 gallons of water a day, even after the ten-year period laid down in Clause 4 has expired, if those 12,500,000.gallons are needed for the purposes of navigation. Canal questions have been raised, and I would say to those who raised them that no one can foresee the future of inland waterway navigation. It may well be that within the next 10 years there will be development and modernisation of existing waterways or even the cutting of an entirely new waterway, which might make it desirable that this water should be available.
The public interest in the second Bill is a good deal greater, and it lies primarily in Clauses 9 to 12, which deal with bridges. My colleagues in the Ministry took a large part in drafting these Clauses, and they had conferences with the railway companies, county councils, highway authorities, and so on. We achieved a highly satisfactory result. Under these Clauses the bridges, which now belong to the railway company, will pass from their ownership to that of the highway authorities if they are on classified or unclassified roads, and to my Noble Friend if they are on trunk roads. They will all pass together, without the necessity of a long series of time-wasting negotiations bridge by bridge. They will pass on extremely advantageous terms to the highway authorities and the Ministry, who will pay nothing to the L.M.S. for them. On the contrary, if I may reassure my hon. Friend who raised the question of money, the L.M.S. will pay to us a sum which will be the commuted value of the maintenance obligations under which they at present stand. If these bridges so pass to the highway authorities and my Noble Friend, we shall be able to reconstruct them, to get rid of the hump-backed formation, sometimes even to fill in and make culverts for the water, and to have road widenings at a very much reduced cost.
We do not want to lose the value of the work that has been done on this Bill. Therefore, we hope that it will be sent by the House to a Committee and that it will become law. I say that subject, as I have indicated, to my desire not to prejudice anything that has been said by any of my hon. Friends on the major point that has been discussed. I repeat my personal hope that the Debate may lead to a happy and agreed result.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I have seldom seen the House in a more unanimous mood. It wants, on the one hand, these two Bills, and it wants, on the other hand, that the Railway Clerks Association should have reasonable recognition. Obviously it cannot get both these aims by dividing, and it is clear that, if we adjourn for a while, the parties might come together and make an agreement. The issue now is a very small one. Apparently the railway companies have agreed to submit to the Ministry of Labour the question whether recognition should be given, having regard to the figures relating to the different categories of workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Railway Clerks Association point out that it is difficult to produce the figures of these categories. I suggest that it would be easy for the Ministry to be able to declare on the simple point whether, in their judgment on the facts given to them, the Railway Clerks Association should be deemed to be the proper body to represent the professional and technical grades.

Mr. A. Bevan: On the global figures.

Mr. Denman: Certainly, on the global figures produced.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords] [By Order]

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.

Mr. Boothby: I am glad to be able to bring the House back from the stormy atmosphere of the railway clerks, to the much more peaceful and tranquil, and, I think in many ways, more profitable atmosphere of the herring, which is an article of food of great importance to this country. I do not suggest that the issue we have been discussing is not of great importance, but I think that in the long run it is not of greater national importance than this Bill. When I was interrupted I was saying that Clause 2 of the Bill carried out in general the recommendations of the Elliot Committee. Paragraph (a) refers to the
power to purchase boats and equipment for the purpose of being chartered or hired to persons desiring to engage in the herring industry, including in particular persons who have previously been engaged in that industry and persons who have served whole-time in the Armed Forces of the Crown or the Mercantile Marine.
I attach immense importance to this Clause. One of the most important things after the war will be to get the young men to come back to the herring fishing industry. This is vital, and I believe this Clause will assist to that end. Before we are able to get them back we must make it clear that it will be not only a worthwhile profession but a good life, and this Bill will go a long way in that direction. I am particularly interested in the reference to persons who have served whole-time in the Armed Forces of the Crown or the Mercantile Marine, because a very large percentage of our young fishermen have served in them during the war. They have done magnificent work, and it is of vital importance that they should be welcomed back into the industry and enabled to take part in it when the war is over.
Paragraph (b), relating to refrigeration 'and processing, really opens a new vista to the herring fishing industry. If what the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said is true—and I believe to be true—and also what was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the experiments now being carried out at Torry are very promising, there is the possibility of achieving a regular supply


throughout the year of herring for the people of this country. That is of great importance. Paragraph (c) carries on this refrigeration question. It is also of great importance because the Herring Industry Board must see that these experiments are successfully completed before the herring are released to the public. Nothing would be more disastrous than a grave mistake, as might conceivably happen. This business is only in the laboratory phase at the moment, and if the first results were not quite right and a lot of "dud" herring were issued to the public, the effect might be disastrous. I think that is safeguarded under this Sub-section.
Paragraph (d) gives power to levy contributions out of the proceeds of first sales of fresh herring. Anybody who saw as I did the condition of affairs at Fraser-burgh during the last summer fishing will realise how necessary it is. They will know that the early boats may realise over 50s. or 60s. a cran, while the boats that come in afterwards find they can only get less than half that price, merely because the train happens to have gone. It is very important that some method should be devised of equalising prices as between different drifters, and I think this Clause carries out that idea.
There is one point with regard to the powers of the Board that I should like to put to the Minister. I hope that he will be in a position to give me an answer, because I have support for my argument. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has asked me to say that he approves of what I am going to say, and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major MacCallum) has spoken to me in the same sense. The powers of the Herring Board should be extended to cover all wholesalers. They should be licensed in the same way as fishermen or fish salesmen. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland received a deputation, shortly after the publication of the Elliot Report, and expressed general sympathy with this view; but the point has not been given effect to in the Bill.
I do not think that retailers should be subject to any kind of control. We want to get all the retailers to sell herring and we want to encourage the sale in every way; but I see great dangers if one

section of the trade itself should not be subject to the authority of the Board, and others should. Fishermen and fish salesmen are to be subject to the authority of the Board, under the licensing system. If an important wholesaler decided to run counter to the policy of the Board he might, in certain circumstances, wreck the whole thing. I ask the Minister, therefore, to look into this matter. This is such a good Bill that I should like to see it passed through the Committee stage without any Amendments moved by private Members at all; but I have received the support of the Scottish Herring Producers' Association and the Clyde Producers' Association, as well as that of the two hon. and gallant Members I mentioned, for the suggestion I am now making; and I ask the Minister whether he will, if necessary, table a Government Amendment, between now and the Committee stage, to give effect to the proposal I have put forward.
Apart from this single point, it seems to me that all the pitfalls have been avoided in the Bill. What is more important is that the financial provisions are adequate. It is one of the first Bills that I have known, after 20 years experience in this House, of which I am able to say that I think the financial provisions are excellent. On the question of powers I will just add that it appears to be the policy of the Government not to be in any great hurry about the setting up of this Herring Board; and, if this is so, I think it is a pity. It should be set up without any delay, so that it can get down to its problems. We shall be confronted with an emergency situation as soon as this war is over—and it may be over sooner than a lot of us think, in view of the way things are going. The Board should be well in the saddle. It is the Board which should devise the plans for meeting the emergency situation that will arise on the Continent of Europe immediately after the war.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on the front bench. Apparently the Ministry of Food think that it will be able to do the job, or most of the job, quite all right in the immediate future. If that is the case, we shall keep a sharp eye on the activities of the Department, but I think the Ministry would find it of great value to establish the Herring Board as quickly as possible, to work in the closest co-opera-


tion with the Board; and, later on, gradually to hand over to it an increasing measure of authority. It could be an agreeable division of powers. I do not think that the Ministry of Food should run the whole thing for any considerable period to come. Here is a tremendous opportunity of setting up the Herring Board at the earliest possible moment, and associating it from the very outset with the work of the Ministry of Food; so that, if and when conditions alter, and peace breaks out, the Herring Board will be able to discharge its functions, and take over the job which is now being done by the fisheries Department of the Ministry.
I would add a word about paragraph (c) of Clause 4. It refers to
the making of loans to any society or organisation formed for the purpose of acquiring nets and gear, fuel,
etc. This brings up the whole question of co-operation in the herring industry. I have long been an advocate of that cooperation, particularly among fishermen. I am convinced by long experience, however, that co-operation cannot be imposed from above. It must be on a voluntary basis, and come from below. This is where the Bill is very wise and sound. Although some fishermen occasionally vote Socialist, they are the most terrific individualists in the world, as any hon. Member who has ever come into contact with them will admit; and they have a rooted objection to being pushed about, by any one, in any way. Therefore, if co-operation is to be effected, it must come from them.
I regard it as encouraging that they are beginning to produce unauthorised, unofficial, but recognised leaders among themselves who do, in fact, negotiate with the Ministry of Food and with other Departments on their behalf. A few years ago they could not have done even that. It is a step in the right direction. The seeds of the co-operative plant have been sown; but for some time the plant will be a tender growth, and will require very careful nursing by the Government and by the Herring Industry Board. I am satisfied that in the course of time it will flourish.
With regard to the export side of the industry, it is an occasion for great satisfaction, indeed of congratulation, that the exporters, since the publication of the Elliot Report, should have agreed to form

a company, and to work together for the first time in history, during the period of reconstruction. Their aggregate experience, which is great, will thus be at the disposal of the Herring Board and the Government.
In this connection I should like to say one word about trade marks. The Mot Report, and this is the only point I find myself in disagreement with it, appeared to desire a uniform brand for exporting herrings. I think this would be a great mistake. Have a minimum standard for export if you like; but keep the individual trade marks, because it is on these that the export trade in herrings before the war was built up, and they are really the best guarantee of quality, as any importer of herrings on the Continent will tell you. He sees a particular trade mark, and knows exactly what is in the barrel; and the goodwill and reputation for highest quality herrings we built up before the war was largely built up on those trade marks. There is nothing in the Bill which would require the Herring Board to eliminate the trade marks, but it is a point I thought I would like to make.
If this industry is to be well found it must be provided with good boats and have good bases. The harbours from which it is to be conducted must therefore be brought to a high state of efficiency and modernised. This is a particular responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture. It is not directly relevant to the Bill under discussion, so I will content myself by saying that there are debts; and we know what ought to be done in a civilised society about debts which have been incurred over a very long period, and are due to conditions for which the debtor is in no way responsible.
This Bill is very much concerned with boats; and I think the Herring Board, the Ministry of Food and the Scottish Office should seek and obtain the cooperation and assistance of the Admiralty so far as the provision of new boats is concerned. I cannot see any reason why they should not get it. The record of the Admiralty with regard to the fishing industry is not at all a good one. I remember we made pleas on many occasions in this House—Members on all sides of this House—that the Admiralty should give a hand in keeping some of these fishing craft in decent repair through the period


between the two wars. Deputations went to the Admiralty to beg them to give a little financial assistance to keep the boats in good repair. What was the Admiralty's reply? It was that they would not want, in the event of another war, either the fishermen or their boats. Twice they gave that reply; it is on the record. Now we hear from the Secretary of State that four-fifths of the drifters were requisitioned by the Admiralty within ten days of the outbreak of war, and 50 per cent. of the fishermen. That happens always in war; but in between wars the Admiralty are not keen on doing much for them.
If the Ministers want the co-operation and assistance of the Admiralty after the war, I think they ought to have it. A lot of boats will be released from naval service after this war, some of which might well be adapted for the purpose of the herring industry; and some of the boats now being built for naval service might be designed for that. If the Ministers want the co-operation of the Admiralty, they have a pretty strong case to put to a Department which rejected the industry before the war, and clung to it like a barnacle as soon as a war broke out.
If the industry is to prosper, it will have to sell large quantities of herring in this country, and also to export on a pretty large scale. A good deal has been said about the markets of Central Europe and of Russia in this Debate. It is absolutely essential that these markets should be regained, particularly the market of Northern and Central Europe. I must say with regard to the Russian market that nobody has been a stronger advocate than I have been, inside and outside this House for many years past, of Anglo-Soviet cooperation; but I would like to say to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) that we really did have a devil of a struggle to get the Russians to buy herrings. They would not do it, because they would never put them on the priority list; and it is not fair to make bitter attacks on Governments between the wars because they refused to grant credits for the purchase of herrings when we were faced year after year by the absolute refusal of the Soviet Government to buy herrings, because they wanted other things more. Looking back, I am not at

all sure that it was not a good thing that they bought these other things which they have put to such good use during the last two or three years.

Mr. Gallacher: Was it not the case that the Government at that period, supported by Members on the other side, made it most difficult, and put the highest price on anything the Soviet was buying, and that if they had been given the same financial conditions as other countries they would have bought herrings?

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member puts me in a slight dilemma. If he is talking about 1926 and the Arcos raid I am with him. I thought the Arcos raid was one of the silliest things this country ever did. If he is referring to 1936 I am against him, because we were struggling very hard to get the Russians to buy herrings. There was no question of lack of credit, or of not doing everything to get them to buy herrings.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Member was talking about a red herring.

Mr. Boothby: That may be, but I do not think there is any reason for quarrelling about it now. We have to concentrate on seeing that the Russians buy some portion of our herring when the war is over. They have developed immense fisheries of their own at Murmansk and in the Caspian Sea; but I hope that with the good will and sense of comradeship and friendship we are now developing with the Soviet Union, we shall be able to persuade them to take, at any rate, a proportion of our annual catch of herring. If so, that will put a bottom in the export market, and be of great value to the industry.
I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is here. I am sure he will realise the importance of this point, as he was the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade for a considerable time, and a very successful one. I feel that the Department of Overseas Trade and the Export Credits Guarantee Department can be of immense assistance to this industry. Before the war there was a relationship developing between the herring exporters and the Export Credits Guarantee Department which showed every sign of being of enormous potential value. I would beg him to see that not only the


Herring Board, but the Departments themselves, on behalf of the industry, keep in close touch with the Department of Overseas Trade and the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Many Members have spoken about the home market. I spoke about it on another occasion. The Ministry of Food has given an example of what can be done by propaganda for the consumption of a particular article of food, and methods of cooking it. One hon. Member referred to eating a matje herring in Holland before the war. With the possible exception of caviare there is no delicacy that equals the taste of herring before the roe is formed in the early spring, light cured and eaten raw. It is absolutely delicious. It has a flavour which is unsurpassed by any other article of food and also engenders a tremendous thirst. It is regarded, and very properly, as a tremendous delicacy both in the countries of North and Central Europe; but I have never seen it on any table in this country, where you get nothing but the horrible Bismark herring. I think if some restaurants in this country would start experimenting with matje herring they would find people would get very excited about it. There is the further point about the cooking of a herring. I would like in one sentence to conclude the story of my lunch yesterday which I was telling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Willits): I think the hon. Member's cooking experiences are not within this Bill and they are becoming rather long.

Mr. Boothby: May I point out that I desisted purposely from telling the story of my lunch yesterday, because you ruled it out of Order, and I thought that that was right on an agricultural matter. But one of the great points in this Bill is propaganda for the sale of herring in this country; and one of the things that the Herring Board has to do, even better than the Ministry of Food has done, is to teach people how to cook herrings. My heart leapt when I saw herrings on the menu at this lunch; and my heart sank when they were brought. My heart sank because they were not split and boned. The one thing that people object to about herrings is the hones. The proper way to treat a herring is to split it, and take out the bone, and then fry it, if possible, in Scotch oatmeal. The way they give a herring to you in this country is enough

to put anybody off herrings altogether. I therefore ask the Ministry of Food to pay special attention to the preparation of herrings.
This Bill is a very fine example of what can be done by means of co-operation between the State and private enterprise, instead of fighting between the State and private enterprise. From this point of view it is, I believe, the shape of things to come; and it may well be an important precedent. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Scotland for bringing it in with such expedition, and for the interest he has shown in the herring fishing industry. The fishermen have served this country well during this war, and they deserve well of it. I believe that their industry has a great future. I believe that this Bill will go a long way to make a great future for them; and I am sure that this House and the public generally wish the fishermen well.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: There is not much time for me, and, therefore, I shall curtail my remarks. I must say, at the beginning, what everybody else has said—"Thank you," to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) for his most excellent Report. I was a great admirer of the Duncan Report, and I think it served a very useful purpose. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend and his Committee, among whom I would mention Provost Carstairs, a constituent of mine, who has very great knowledge of the subject, have done a great service. First, I would ask the Minister to tell us a little more than the Secretary of State did, in response to a question of mine, about the intentions of the Government in regard to the Board. The Committee recommended that preparations for the post-war period should be regarded as a matter of urgency. I urge that the Board should be reconstituted now, not necessarily on a full-time basis, but on some basis—plans should be made now. Secondly, I think that the Government should say now what sort of Board it will be. The first Board was composed of nine people —far too many; the second Board was composed of three. The Elliot Report suggested that it should be three again. I think that the Board should be small and elite. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether that recommendation of


the Committee has been accepted? Also, do the Government intend to set up an advisory council? That is a matter of very great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) spoke, with more optimism than I should care to express, about the emergence of leaders in the industry. One of the great weaknesses of this industry in the past has been that it has not produced effective leaders. One way of promoting leadership would be through this advisory council, whose members could be changed, and picked from among young fishermen.
One of the best recommendations of this Report—and I would like the Minister, if he must neglect all my other points, to deal with this—is that contained at the top of page 33, where the Committee recommend that the Board should be empowered to buy, sell, process, and export herring, and generally assume the powers of a trading concern. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was dilating, earlier on, about the neglect of the herring fishing industry by the Government between the two wars. I think my hon. Friend would agree with me that the trouble in those years was not the neglect of the Government. We were at the Government's throat every month or so. They were doing their best, but they were handicapped by two major defects in the system.
The industry produced repeated surpluses, and there was no way of disposing of those surpluses. Russia and Germany were not taking what they used to take—never mind the reasons. Along comes my right hon. and gallant Friend and his Committee with a recommendation that will go far towards settling that problem. The recommendation is that, where the herring industry at, shall we say the Lowestoft fisheries or the Yarmouth fisheries—wherever you like—suddenly produces an enormous harvest, which cannot be disposed of through the usual channels, the Board can, as a trading concern —as a piece of the automatic business by the Board, not as a special measure—buy such quantities of the catch as it is necessary to steady the market. I can support that with all consistency, because I and several of my hon. Friends many times approached the Scottish Secretary with a similar proposal in past years. The great

obstacle was that the Government had no power to undertake such a plan, because the Board did not exist. Now the Board will exist.

Mr. Gallaeher: The hon. Member says that the Government were doing their best. Did he listen to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), supported by another hon. Member, say that on two occasions a deputation went to the Admiralty, and that the Admiralty said that as there was not a war on they would do nothing for the fishermen?

Mr. Stewart: I heard that. The hon. Member was talking about the boats. I am talking about the problem of the catch—a very different matter. I invite my right hon. Friend to say that it is the intention of the Government to accept that primary recommendation, to make it a regular part of the Board's new work to undertake these purchases. Let me turn to the point about the boats, to which my hon. Friend has referred. Here we are to have a grant, for five years, of £820,000, for encouraging the building and purchase of new boats. Incidentally, I am very glad to find that my neighbour from West Fife so strongly defends the institution of private capitalism. It makes me feel hopeful that, the longer he remains Member for West Fife, the more he will become imbued with the sound capitalistic views of the Eastern part of the county. The Scottish Secretary did not tell us for what that £820,000 was going to be used. I am going to ask two questions, which are absolutely vital. How many boats has he in mind? The Duncan Commission were criticised in many quarters for producing a Report dealing with scarcity. Their recommendations were to cut down, and many regretted that that was so.
Here is the Minister, in this Bill, legislating for a period of some kind of moderate expansion. How many boats? It is of first-class importance that you should build just as many boats as the industry can profitably employ. If you build too many, you go back to the old 1934–36 days of trouble. If you build too few, you are keeping many competent men out of a trade, and you are refusing the population of this country an excellent food. It is important that we should know how many boats the Government have in mind. Secondly, it is even more important to know what kind of boats.
Anyone who has gone through those years of trouble in the herring industry has seen that this question of the kind of boat is vital. A member of the Elliot Committee, who is a very skilful and experienced man, has himself been building and putting into the business a new type of boat. It is a motor-boat of a type which can go to the Yarmouth fishing, and, when herring fishing is not being done, can be used for catching white fish. The result is that the crews of all his boats have, without exception, week after week, season after season, come home with more money in their pockets than any other crews of any other ships. That is, directly, the result of having the right kind of boat, so that I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that the Department propose to extend their research as much into the kind of boat, as into methods of refrigeration and other things.
I have just one or two small points to add. The first is a constituency point. One recommendation of the Elliot Committee is that there shall be research into the problem of winter fishing. The Firth of Forth produces one of the winter fisheries in Great Britain, perhaps the only one. From our point of view, it is very important that we should know what the Government means by saying that there will be encouragement for winter fishing. I want to know what is intended by that. I observe that in Clause 2 (3), it is proposed to have a levy in order to create a pool, out of which less fortunate fishermen will be assisted, but it is only to be imposed in those ports or areas where the prevailing opinion is in favour of such a scheme. I suppose that is the proper way to approach the problem, but I am very doubtful of its success. I do not think my right hon. Friend would ever do it in the East of Fife. We are all, as one hon. Member said, very individualistic there. I feel that the Government will have to use a certain amount of propaganda before they can get this idea over, and yet it is a most important idea, and one would like to know whether the Government have any very strong views on it.
My last point is this. There is nothing in the Report about the necessity for a flat rate of transport. I think myself that our fishing in Scotland will never succeed unless we can maintain

the present war-time Ministry of Food fiat rate transport charges. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) may ask how it is possible for his fish to compete with Yarmouth, if it costs them two or three times as much to send the fish to London. That is getting at the root of it. That is practical politics and it is business. I hope the Minister will say what is being done about that. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is recommended."] Well, if so, I will ask the Government if they accept the recommendation. I congratulate the Government on the Bill and wish it success.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I should like to start by joining with the Secretary of State for Scotland, in expressing personal thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) for his Report. He took a great deal of trouble over it, and he has the satisfaction of knowing that he must be the first chairman, at all events, in our memory, to produce a Report with a very large number of recommendations, all of which are either covered by existing legislation, or will be covered in future, and I am sure that, as far as the English side of the industry is concerned, we are extremely grateful to him.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) asks me whether grants could be made to companies. The answer is that, where the company consists of a single man, or three or four fishermen together, then that will undoubtedly come within the scope of the Bill; but not where the company is an ordinary liability company with large numbers of shareholders scattered round the countryside. The hon. Member also asked me whether we would take powers to regulate the processing of kippers, and my answer is that these powers already exist in the main Act in Clause 3. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) said it was time the primary producer came into his own, and I appreciate what he said. Speaking as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country, I thoroughly share his views. He also asks me whether a boat should not be able to come into a particular port with fish. Perhaps he will let me have fuller particulars. I rather think it is a matter for the Ministry of Food, but I will look into it, before the Committee stage, if necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. F. Beattie) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked questions about the Board itself. The answer is that the Board, assuming that the Bill becomes law, will be reconstituted at once, consisting of three people, and we anticipate that it will then begin at once to prepare plans for the post-war regulation and development of the industry. It will be realised that, for the moment, it cannot have any executive powers, but, as soon as war conditions admit, we hope to give it executive powers. These executive powers will, we imagine, start at first with the production end of the industry and will later on deal with the distribution end. The hon. Member for East Fife also asked about the number of boats we have in mind. That, of course, will also be a matter—as will the design of boats—for the Board, and it is one in which we shall endeavour to give them all the assistance in our power.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove asked about the levies for social security. That is a matter which is being considered by the Government at the present moment in connection with the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to wait until the White Paper on our proposals comes out. The conditions in the industry are, of course, not too easy, but the general position governing the fishing industry, and other similar industries, is that we think it ought to be dealt with by general legislation rather than in this Bill.
The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) asked why there should be a different figure in Clause 4 from that in Clause 6. Clause 4 governs the amount of loans' and so forth that may be made to fishermen, that is, £1,700,000. Clause 6 extends the borrowing powers of the Board to £2,500,000 and the difference between the two sums is in order to cover expenditure which the Board may wish to make for its own purposes, such as, for example, processing. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) asked about wholesalers' licences. They probably know that the 1938 Act gave us

powers over licensing of port wholesalers, and as far as we are advised that should cover the difficulty, because we are informed that there is very little actual business done between the individual fishermen and inland retailers. But if my hon. Friends think that our existing powers do not go far enough, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be very glad to go into the matter further if it is thought that further powers should be taken on the Committee stage; but we are inclined to think that our existing powers are sufficient.
The hon. Member for East Fife also raised a point about the question of whether or not the Board could deal with landings when gluts arise. The answer is that we contemplate that the Board will be authorised to undertake refrigeration and processing. That will have to be done in conjunction with the various interests in the industry, but the Board will also be empowered as principals to purchase, refrigerate, and process herring in special cases such as that indicated by my hon. Friend, when landings occur which are beyond the normal capacity of the trade.
The only other subject I would mention is that raised by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan). It was perhaps a little unfortunate that he should destroy the harmony of what was otherwise a unanimous day by introducing two apples of discord into the Debate. One was as to the relative importance of Scotland and England. I could go into that at great length. Suffice it to say that Englishmen land slightly more herrings each year than the Scots, despite their being smaller in number.

Mr. Boothby: Sunday fishing?

Mr. Hudson: The fact remains that they do. But the other much more important point of the hon. Member for Western Isles was an attempt to score, as I think, some party capital, and to rake up old sores at a time when I should have thought all of us would welcome and admire the magnificent effort being made by the Soviet Forces, in our attempt to destroy Hitler and all his works.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further——

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member had better Jet me finish. As I say, I, personally, do not want to renew old sores,


but for the sake of historical record it is just as well that I should give the House the actual facts. I interrupted the hon. Member from memory, but I have since had the facts checked and they are as follows. Up till 1932 the Russians made no use of the exports credits scheme. From 1933 they bought for spot cash. When the credit arrangement was negotiated in 1936—over £10,000,000 sterling —the Russians bought capital goods. The export credit was, during those years, available for the purchase of herrings. My hon. Friend made the astounding statement that the Soviet did not think that we were reliable providers, when in fact the herrings were available—and I know as I was at the Department of Overseas Trade—for someone to buy them. The Russians did not take advantage of them. I am not blaming them. They were entitled, as a Government, to decide what they should buy, and they did not buy the herrings.

Mr. M. MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman has taken me up completely on the wrong point. I was not dealing with that at all. I was talking about the diplomatic break with Russia in 1927. It was a most important thing and had repercussions on the herring industry.

Mr. Hudson: That has nothing to do with the fact that we could not sell herring to Russia in the days immediately before the war. There was a point made also by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove when he called attention to the magnificent efforts of the fishermen of this country to make good, as far as possible, the difficulties caused by the requisitioning of such a very high proportion of the boats by the Admiralty, not only of the herring fishermen but also of the white and inshore fishermen. Although, no doubt, the supply of fish is nothing like as great as we should like, nevertheless, the fact that we have such supplies as we have is very great testimony to the efforts the fishing fleet have made.
Perhaps in conclusion I may be allowed to do a little modest blowing of the Government's trumpet. The report of the Elliot Committee was only presented to Ministers in January, and yet within six short months, despite the pre-occupations and preparations of the Second Front and many other highly important matters, we have found time to consider the recom-

mendations and embody them in a Bill which we believe should provide the framework for the future of the industry. The herring industry went through a very lean time between the wars. It is a small industry. There are only some 10,000 men engaged in it but many of these have suffered great distress and hardship owing to the loss of foreign markets and to the swing of the British public's taste away from herring. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food tells me that his experts are sure that, once the Bill comes into operation and we are able to distribute herring, they can arrange propaganda abut the cooking which will result in a very much larger consumption. The British public is only too anxious to-day to eat all the fish that can be caught.
I hope—and I am very glad to see that hon. Members agree, on all sides of the House—that we shall do our best to see that the 4,000 men serving in the Forces and the Mercantile Marine, and the others, will not return after the war to the sort of things they had to put up with in prewar years. We believe the Bill provides a basis on which the herring industry can build up for itself a prosperous future. It implements all the recommendations of the Report, and if—as I hope it will—it becomes an Act, it will be up to the industry itself to seize the opportunity that the Bill provides and set up during the next few years, when the demand is bound to be good, a long-term permanent basis of prosperity. I hope and believe—and so does my right hon. Friend—that this Bill provides a firm foundation on which the industry can be built and I hope that the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Sloan: I am sorry at this late hour that I should step in to detain the House, but I happen to represent a constituency that is very much interested in the herring fishing business. If I were to do justice to the fishermen of my constituency I should need to be as wise as Solomon, as versatile as the Secretary of State for Scotland, and as vigorous as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). On behalf of my fishermen, I, also, welcome the Bill because I have seen the difficulties under which they have had to work in times gone by in dull seasons. There have been many facets in this Debate and I was genuinely interested to find the Minister


of Agriculture becoming so hot under the collar when my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) suggested that political exigencies interfered with the export trade of the herring industry. I do not want to cause any schism between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture; if I did, I should ask him to turn up the columns of "Forward" during that period, where he would find very remarkable evidence in print that the Government of the day did tremendous harm to the herring-fishing industry of this country. One would think that the Minister of Agriculture and the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) have forgotten all the diatribes against the Soviet Union when they sent their burglars to break into Arcos and the Soviet Trade Mission withdrew from Britain, and they were responsible for the disaster that happened to our export trade.
I welcome the Bill in many of its aspects and I am pleased that some assistance is to be given to fishermen in the renewal of their boats and gear and in the provision of new boats. As we all know, these boats are very expensive. Two types have been mentioned, the trawler and the motor boat—the latter used by the ordinary fishermen—and my people on the Ayrshire coast use a fishing boat that costs something over £2,000 which will, I am afraid, hardly be replaced now for less than £3,000 and probably £4,000. I cannot see that the amount of money that is being expended in the Bill will meet the situation for those who require it afterwards. The fishing industry has been very badly hit.—[Interruption.] There are meetings here and meetings there and meetings everywhere. I do not care if there are a hundred of them but it happens that one person has the Floor of the House at the present time and that person is entitled to order, during the period when the Debate is going on. What I was saying was that the herring industry has been very badly hit. The first thing that happened was that a large number of the boats procured by these people over the period, were requisitioned and I am not convinced that the requisitioning was done with any degree of sympathy regarding the fishermen. Those boats will be returned in a hopeless state, and it is to be hoped that they will be put into condition

before they are handed back. The young men of the fishing villages have been taken away—they were among the first that were called on—and you could walk through fishing villages to-day in Ayrshire, and find that youth is conspicuous by its absence. What one would not like to see is a repetition—of course it is hoped that the Bill will prevent that—of the sad period they experienced between the two wars.
We have had figures given us in regard to production. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us that fishermen are producing at the rate of 25 tons per fisherman. That is without subsidies. We are attempting to bolster up agriculture for the purpose of producing foodstuffs but here we have the supply of food mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove being thrown into the pool without any assistance at all from the Government. I conclude by saying that I welcome the Bill on behalf of the fishermen in my constituency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Captain McEaren.]

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the giving of further financial assistance to the Herring Industry Board and to herring fishermen and persons desiring to engage in the herring industry, to amend the Herring Industry Acts, 1935 to 1938, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient,—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of grants to herring fishermen and persons desiring to engage in the herring industry for the purpose of assisting in the provision of boats and equipment which could not be provided without such assistance, so, however, that a grant in respect of any boat or equipment shall not exceed one-third of the total cost thereof and the aggregate of the grants shall not exceed eight hundred and twenty thousand pounds;
(ii) in respect of the general administrative expenses of the Herring Industry Board (including the expenses of the Herring Industry Advisory Council and of


any committee appointed by the Board), of sums not exceeding seventy-five thousand pounds;
(iii) in respect of such other expenses of the said Board as may be specified in the said Act, of sums not exceeding the amount which with the sums paid. in respect of the general administrative expenses of the Board will amount to two hundred and fifty thousand pounds;
(iv) of advances not exceeding, in the aggregate one million and seven hundred thousand pounds to the said Board towards their expenses in the exercise of such of their powers as may be specified in the said Act;
(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer in acccordance with the said Act of sums received by way of interest on, or repayment of the principal of, any advances made to the said Board;
(c) to authorise the Treasury to remit any sum repayable by way of principal of any such advance as aforesaid as to which they are satisfied that it cannot be repaid.—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. T. Johnston.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, &c,

Ordered: "That Sir Herbert Holds-worth be discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, &c., and that Mr. Furness be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — CABINET MINISTERS (NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Sir Richard Acland: I wish to raise a short discussion on the position of the Cabinet Ministers who are also proprietors——

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Sir R. Acland: I would like to raise this question as a matter of general principle, and also in relation to the present position of the Lord Privy Seal, who is simultaneously the proprietor, or the major proprietor, of the "Daily

Express," the "Evening Standard" and the "Sunday Express." Hon. Members will remember that during the Conservative Administration of 1924–29 a somewhat similar question arose, I think, in relation to the position of the late Lord Birkenhead, who contributed articles to the Press. After discussion an unwritten rule was made and accepted that Cabinet Ministers should not contribute articles to the Press, for several reasons. The first was that a Minister should give the whole of his time to his job, and that if a Cabinet Minister expressed certain thoughts in an article there were only two possibilities—either that they were his own private thoughts or expressions of Government policy. If they were expressions of Government policy then an article by an individual Minister in his own paper was not the proper way of expressing Government policy, and if they were an expression of his own private point of view then it was thought that Ministers, who would have wide opportunities of placing articles in the Press, should not use that particular way of publicising their own views.
I fully appreciate that different views can be held, but it would seem to me that there is at least a prima face case for saying that this rule that Cabinet Ministers should not contribute articles to the Press applies a fortiori to the position of a Minister of Cabinet rank, who is the proprietor of largely influential journals in which he is obviously at any moment in a position to write unsigned articles and to make quite sure that they will be published and in which, of course, he exercises, or at any rate can exercise, control over general policy. In the case of the Lord Privy Seal I think it is general knowledge that although, doubtless, when he is a Member of the Government he does not devote so many hours or days a week to his newspapers as he otherwise would, nonetheless he exercises fairly active control over general policy. It is true that one of his editors at least and one of his cartoonists have amazingly wide liberty of action, but in the last resort it is he who controls policy, and when editors are changed—as I believe they are in newspapers from time to time —then it is the Lord Privy Seal who exercises responsibility for making those changes. That means that a Cabinet 'Minister who is in the important position of being the proprietor of several papers holds in his hands powers which are not


available to his colleagues. I therefore want to raise the general question—some may share my views and others may express a different view—as to whether this is a proper and normal state of affairs.
Coming from the general position to the particular instance that is related to it, I suppose it is a matter of common knowledge that there is what can be described in no other terms than a vendetta against the Co-operative Wholesale Society in one of his newspapers. It seems rather peculiar when he has as his Cabinet colleague at the Admiralty the leader of the Parliamentary group associated with this organisation. If the position had been reversed in a political sense, and if such a Minister as the Home Secretary had been the proprietor of newspapers, and had very powerfully stamped his personality upon them, and if in these last months those newspapers had been pursuing a steady attack on the Property Owners Association, the mineowners, the railway stockholders or any other such body of citizens, I cannot help thinking there would have been protests and questions as to the propriety of this procedure. The organisation with which I am associated has also attracted his Lordship's attention. I do not want to get particular individuals into trouble but we have heard, as nearly directly as you can come to being absolutely direct, about instructions given to the people who write for those papers, not to comment upon our activities from the point of view of people who hold a different political opinion but to hunt round for any item which cant possibly be twisted to our discredit.
I will give, an example of what has actually happened. A certain gentleman started certain companies for the purpose of gold mining in Australia in 1932. The company got into difficulties about 1939. After all the difficulties had arisen, a certain Mr. MacKay was called in in his professional capacity to try to clear up the mess tha t had been made and save what could be saved for the people who had invested their money in the companies. It turned out that it would be advantageous that he should be a director of some of these companies. He was a director of other companies, but that was not mentioned. This one fact is dug out and printed in one of these newspapers —that Mr. MacKay, the chairman of

Common Wealth, has been a director of companies A, B, C and D. These companies not being in good repute with the public, the implication was that he was one of the people who had caused the trouble from the beginning, instead of only being. called in in his professional capacity to clear it up.
One does not complain—it is all in the day's work—if newspaper proprietors behave in this way, or give such instructions to their, servants, but when those newspaper proprietors are also Cabinet Minister the position becomes difficult. After all, Cabinet Ministers sometimes take part in by-elections—one expects them to be hard-hitting politically—but no Cabinet Minister speaking on a by-election platform would have stooped to pull off this kind of statement, which is factually true but carries the implication I have mentioned. Yet here is a Cabinet Minister' who, through his power to direct a large number of journalists, is able to do it. It does not feel right to me.
I want to come to what seems to me to be really the most important point. In all Governments, quite inevitably, properly, and healthily, we have from time to time what are known as Cabinet reshuffles. It would be a bad Government which lasted for five years without one or two Cabinet reshuffles. Behind these events as they occur there always lie a number of political issues, but as these issues begin to exert their pressure up to a point when a Cabinet reshuffle begins to be discussed as a possibility, one knows, human nature being what it is, that these political issues are apt to personalise themselves on to the persons of different Cabinet Ministers who may be affected one way or the other. It seems to me to be wrong that among the Ministers who may be involved one way or the other in a Cabinet reshuffle there should be one who wields the great power which the proprietor of several newspapers of wide circulation has. This power manifestly can include the power, which need not even be expressed in suggestion or hint, when a Cabinet reshuffle is made in a way which violently offends the Cabinet Minister concerned, to swing that power from the support of the Government to a position which is against the Government. It seems all wrong to me that a Cabinet Minister should have this power. That is why I raised this matter, so that it may be discussed. I would like to say to the


Minister of Information that he perhaps might feel that his connection with a newspaper came into what I have been saying. With great wisdom and propriety, he has entirely dissociated himself from any connection with newspapers with which he was previously associated, and I would like to assure him that in what I have been saying there is not one iota of my thought which is directed towards his position.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): So has Lord Beaver-brook.

Sir R. Acland: The reply to that is, "Tell it to the Marines," because I do not believe there is an hon. Member who could lay his hand on his heart and say that he believed that to be true in fact. In law I do not know what the position may be.

Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend has said that I have dissociated myself from the newspapers with which I was formerly connected. All official association has ceased. So has Lord Beaverbrook's association with his newspapers.

Sir R. Acland: My tribute to the right hon. Gentleman is that the separation in his case has been in the letter, the law and the spirit. Whether in the case of Lord Beaverbrook the thing has been done in law I do not know, but I should not have thought there was a Member of the House who knows anything of what is generally called Fleet Street who is not perfectly well aware that on matters of major policy the Lord Privy Seal is——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I ought to warn the House that, as far as I understand the practice, it is not usual, and in fact is against the Rules of the House, to attack the character of a Member of another place in any way. I simply give that out as a warning, so that any such attack should, not develop in any way.

Sir R. Acland: I do not think it was an attack upon the late Lord Birkenhead, when it was suggested that he had been wrong in writing articles for the Press.

Mr. Bartle Bull: We are not dealing with him at the moment.

Sir R. Acland: I hope I am not implying an attack on the character of Lord Beaverbrook.

Mr. Bull: What is the hon. Member doing?

Sir R. Acland: I do not think that among hon. Members of this House it could be very long sustained if it were suggested—whatever the legal position may be—that the Lord Privy Seal exercises no influence whatever on the general policy, or on the personnel of the editors, of this group of papers or that changes are not made directly on the instigation of the Lord Privy Seal. It is news to me and I think it will be news to a great many other people.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The Common Wealth mountain has been in labour and has produced a mouse. What is the real charge which has been brought by the hon. Member? I hold no brief either for the "Daily Express" or for Lord Beaverbrook, except that in declaring my interest in the matter, as one says, I can say that Lord Beaverbrook happens to reside in my constituency. I cannot, however, call him my constituent, because a Peer cannot be one's constituent. The whole of the reason for the hon. Member's speech was that the "Daily Express" has attacked the Common Wealth Party and the only way in which the hon. Member could get back at the "Daily Express" was to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I have intervened because I think this is a serious matter to this extent: where are we to stop, if we are to say that individuals who have outside interests shall not be in the Government? It would be a very dangerous thing, just because one did not like this or that individual or his occupation, to say that he was to be debarred, and by inference attacked, as Lord Beaverbrook has been attacked, on the grounds that he was not playing entirely straight.
There is no difference between the position of the Minister of Information, who was connected with a newspaper, and that of Lord Beaverbrook. We accept the word of my right hon. Friend that he no longer has active direction of the newspaper, although he must have stamped his colourful personality upon it, just as Lord Beaverbrook's colourful personality does, to some extent, stamp itself on the "Daily Express." The real reason for the speech we heard is that the "Daily Express," I will not say exposed, but did go into some of the inner workings of the


Common Wealth Party. There never was such nonsense, as to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Anyone who read the remarks of the hon. Baronet when he said he was going to raise this subject on the Adjournment, and who has listened to his speech to-day, will be conscious of a gap and a division between the two sets of observations. When he said he was going to raise the matter on the Adjournment he complained that in the "Daily Express" a propaganda of hatred against Germany was being spread and he gave us an example of a cock and bull story, as he described it, which had appeared in the "Daily Express" the day before, to the effect that 47 R.A.F. officers had been the victims of a mass murder. On the basis that it was a cock and bull story he thought it quite wrong that the proprietor of that newspaper should be in the Cabinet. As we know, in broad outline that was not a cock and bull story. It was unhappily the fact that not 47 but 50 officers had been the victims of a mass murder, not exactly in the circumstances originally described, but in worse circumstances. The original suggestion was that the guards had run amuk and that there had been general confusion. The actual facts were that the murders had been committed in cold blood, as was stated by the Foreign Secretary.

Sir R. Acland: We have very little time on the Adjournment.

The Attorney-General: We have. Indeed, I do not 'complain that the hon. Baronet has raised this matter, not on the basis that the "Daily Express" was producing that cock and bull story, or that he has had to find another cock and bull story, about Mr. MacKay. I was in a position to deal with his original complaint, but he gave me no notice about Mr. MacKay. That is not the way in which one would expect an hon. Member to raise a matter when it relates to a Member of the Government.

Dr. Morgan: But Ministers do it.

The Attorney-General: One of the fundamental principles of our Constitution is, of course, that the Prime Minister chooses the names which he will submit

to His Majesty for the various offices, and of course he may choose names of persons who have some particular, and normally who have some other, interest. He may choose a great landowner, or a man of great prominence in the Co-operative Wholesale Movement, or he may choose a newspaper proprietor. One can give other cases where a man who becomes a Cabinet Minister has relations outside public life in one form of activity or another. It is quite plain that when a man becomes a Cabinet Minister there are many things which obviously he must cease to do. I can assure the House—and the hon. Baronet has produced no evidence that the Lord Privy Seal still takes any part—that he has taken no part whatsoever in the management and conduct of these newspapers since he became Lord Privy Seal. Of course, as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) said, Lord Beaverbrook has been connected with these newspapers for many years and his personality may go marching on, but he takes no part whatever in their conduct and management. That is right, and he carries out the principles which are rightly applied in this class of case. There are many other classes of activity where it would be right, when a man becomes a Cabinet Minister, quite apart from the question of time, that he should cease to become concerned with their management and activity. There are some cases where a man might take some part, for instance, in managing his own property, but in the case of newspaper directorships and companies, trade, and with minor exceptions, solicitors, he should take no part in the activities of the firm with which he was previously associated. That is what has happened here.
I cannot think that one should lay down as a constitutional principle that in no case should a Prime Minister be entitled to have as a colleague—to submit for His Majesty's approval—someone who owns a small, large or controlling interest in a newspaper. I think there would be no such justification for any limitation on the right of the Prime Minister to choose his colleagues. The hon. baronet suggested that this had something to do with a matter which was raised in the Parliament of 1924 or 1929 when there was a statement made in the House by the then Prime Minister in answer to a Question. It is, that it was


undesirable that Ministers should indulge in the practice of journalism, that they should write articles in the papers. It was agreed that they could write more weighty books, on subjects of learning, and so forth, but 'that contributing to day-to-day journalism was undesirable. That has been laid down, and it has been observed. The Lord Privy Seal is not writing articles for these papers, or engaging in the practice of journalism. Taking the hon. Baronet's point, it seems to me that that is a wholly different thing. His point is that a man who has a controlling interest in a newspaper, although he takes no part in the management, ought not to be a Cabinet Minister. I suggest that the hon. Baronet, who really has completely changed his ground since he told us that he was going to raise this matter—although he has, if I may say so, put his point with moderation—has failed to make out any case for saying that the Prime Minister should be precluded from asking someone who is a newspaper proprietor to assist him, in one capacity or another, as a Minister.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I would like, perhaps a little unexpectedly, to support my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) in one thing. I am entirely in favour of newspaper proprietors quarrelling with each other. The hon. Baronet is a newspaper proprietor. He owns a newspaper called "Town and Country Review," which came to an untimely end, and the remains were purchased by the "Evening Standard"——

Sir R. Acland: The paper was suppressed by the Ministry of Supply. They would not give us the paper.

Mr. Baxter: —for a sum of somewhere around £500. However, a new publication called "The Commonwealth Review, 6d., once a month," is sold. I only want to warn the hon. Baronet that, if this goes too, he will not sell it again to the "Standard" for £500. They say that a "sucker" is born every minute, but you cannot fool a "sucker" a second time. This journal will have to travel on its own merits. I do not think that the hon. Baronet's words were very caustic or very cruel: they were certainly not very effective; but I suggest that he has shown, for a newspaper proprietor, a virginal innocence of how newspapers are produced. There is much authority vested, not only in editors and assistant editors. As he should know, it is the "boys in the back room" who realty get the paper out—these Scottish editors, night editors, and news editors. They do not refer everything to the proprietor. Perhaps the hon. Baronet has done us a good turn in raising this question, because he has shown us that newspaper proprietors always fall out, and I hope that that will always be the case, because, in the feuds of Fleet Street, between the peers and others who own newspapers, there is hope for us who are interested and who dwell in the anterooms of the, great.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.